Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (BARROW) BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL

Ordered,
That the Committee on the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill have leave to visit and inspect the present site and environs, and the proposed future site, of Spitalfields Market, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Housing Benefit

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Urgent cases are already in payment. The unit is already building up to strength, and I expect it to be fully operational in two to three weeks' time.

Mr. Corbett: Can the Minister explain what people entitled to this relief, but unable to get it yet, are supposed to do in the meantime? Will he give the House a date by which this office will be fully manned, with all the staff properly trained? Will he confirm that after this modest relief many people will still be substantially worse off, faced with higher rents as a result of the cuts that the Government have made in housing benefit?

Mr. Scott: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman and to all colleagues in the House explaining what people should do to obtain help if they needed it. The unit should be fully operational in two to three weeks' time, but applications are already being received. We had no fewer than 5,000 applications in the post today, so the message is getting across. In my letter to all hon. Members I mentioned the Freephone and post facilities. Anybody who needs urgent help can make special arrangements with Glasgow to obtain it quickly.

Mr. Barnes: It is possible for people to receive emergency payments through the DHSS if they qualify later for them. What will happen to those people in future, because it is possible that some will receive emergency payments, but, when the unit is established, will then lose them?

Mr. Scott: The object of the emergency payments is to help people who might be in danger of losing their home if they are not helped immediately. For example, it should be perfectly possible for a local authority tenant to make it clear that he or she has applied for transitional protection, and for the local authority to check his or her entitlement and no doubt postpone the arrangements for the collection of rent until the help becomes available.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister will know from correspondence that many of my constituents have lost up to £26 a week because of the Government's changes in April. For many of them that means acute hardship and rising debt. Will the heating charge rebate, which was payable before April, be covered by the transitional arrangements? That is not in the DHSS guidance form, and my local citizens' advice bureau says that that costs some 80-year-old pensioners up to £7 a week. Is that covered for them and people on income support?

Mr. Scott: This question applies to housing benefit. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking about income support.

Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable difficulty in getting through to this office on the telephone? Several of my constituents have been unable to get through, and I have yet to meet a constituent who has got through to anyone or anything but an answering machine. Is he sure that sufficient communications equipment has been installed in the office to meet the demand?

Mr Scott: If it is felt necessary to install additional lines we shall do that, but we have sent out 22,000 copies of form RR4, which is the application form in the form of a leaflet, in response to calls on the Freephone system.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the special unit urgently get in touch with Norwich city council, which appears to be slow in arranging these transitional payments for many of my constituents? After all, it received the information from the DHSS as early as 1 June, yet many people are suffering because of the slow response of the council.

Mr. Scott: We have sent out information to all local authorities so that they can advise people about their rights. When working the system of transitional protection, I hope that local authorities will show the same level of co-operation and efficiency and commitment as they showed over the transition to the new system of housing benefit, on which they were complimented.

Mr. Wigley: In my constituency a 56-year-old widow's payable rent has gone up from £7 to £21 a week because of reductions in housing benefit and she has only minumum income over and above her widow's pension. Will she be helped by the transitional arrangements, or will she have to trust to luck?

Mr. Scott: I find it difficult to imagine that transitional protection would not extend to the hon. Gentleman's constituent. I have heard too many cases, which have been traded backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House, in which the facts sometimes are not exactly as stated. I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House in any way—I know him too well for that—but if he cares to write to me about the specific case I shall make sure that he gets an answer.

Mr. Robin Cook: I wish to refer the Minister to last week's judgment from the appeals tribunal, which said that the Minister had acted outwith his powers by scrapping housing benefit supplement. Will he take this opportunity to correct the bold view of his Under-Secretary that the judgment applied to the four pensioners only and not to the 440,000 others in identical circumstances? Is he aware that there is no better formula for clogging up every tribunal in the land until the end of

the year? Now that the Government have been caught out, will he have the grace to accept this verdict and pay to all those affected the money that he had no right to take from them in the first place?

Mr. Scott: Many of the people who were reported in the press as having lost—if the judgment were to apply across the board; I do not accept for one moment that it does —would, in any case, through other parts of the benefit system, be assured of losing absolutely nothing.
The chairman of the tribunal said that in reaching that conclusion he was not declaring a result, but starting a process in train and that it would be for the chief adjudication officer to decide in due course whether to appeal against the decision. I am certain that that officer will want to study the considered judgment and the written findings of the tribunal. We took careful advice and the regulations were, of course, considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments before they were laid.

Benefit Offices (Computers)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many computers have been installed in benefit offices in the period for which complete records are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): We have installed more than 3,000 micro-computers in the Department's local offices so far, and at least one computer in each of the Department of Employment's unemployment benefit offices. Within the next 12 months we will start linking all local offices to mainframe computers, providing a fully-computerised service for pensions and income support.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Opposition continually claim a monopoly for caring and sharing, but that they totally failed to modernise the system? Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the largest computerisation programme in Europe?

Mr. Portillo: In common with my hon. Friend I certainly wish that we had made an earlier start, but progress is now extremely good. I believe that the result will be a great success in the quality of service to claimants. I confirm that it is the largest civil programme outside the United States.

Mr. Madden: Will the programme also gain the reputation as an even bigger administrative shambles than that over which the Home Office presides at Lunar house? Is it not a fact that £8 million has been spent on this computer system, but that, even today, the DHSS is unable to place in the Library information for the first month or, indeed, the second month of the operation of the social fund? When will the DHSS get its act together, answer questions on these matters, and get the information to the Library, which it has been promising for the past three months?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded about this matter. Within the next day or so


I hope to place in the Library the social fund data for May. Today is 14 June. I do not believe that a two-week delay in producing the data for May is untoward.

Mr. Patnick: Will the computerisation programme benefit my constituents who receive benefit?

Mr. Portillo: I am convinced that it will provide a quicker and more accurate service. It will mean that in due course claimants will be able to go to a local office and discuss all their benefits. They will be able to call at any office in the country and obtain information about their claiming position. Those are all great advances.

Mr. Kennedy: When installing the new system, has the Department taken account of the warning expressed several years ago in evidence to a Special Committee of the House that if the configuration involved in the computer system was not of a certain type any subsequent Administration would be unable to adapt the system—for example, for the purpose of merging or integrating tax and benefits? Can the Minister assure us that this computer system will leave open that practical possibility, in case a subsequent Administration wish to pursue such a policy?

Mr. Portillo: We have certainly pursued the issue of equipment with a view to making it highly compatible. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured about those points.

Regional Health Authorities (Allocation of Funds)

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps have been taken to ensure that the resource allocation working party formula takes fully into account the proportion of funds which have to be devoted to wages, salaries, and so on in his Department's allocation of funds to regional health authorities.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): The formula, which is about distribution of resources within an agreed national allocation, needs to reflect pay separately only to the extent that significant pay variations between regions occur. Thus, there are adjustments for London weighting and a specific market forces element for London. Thereafter, each authority is free to decide how to spend its allocation.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that answer, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government decide to increase the resources and funding of the NHS nationally by 2 per cent. in real terms, the net effect, because of RAWP, in health authorities such as Barnet will be to be left with minus 2 per cent.? Given that three quarters of Barnet's budget goes on wages and salaries, which are increased by much more than the going rate of inflation, that leads to significant cuts in services, facilities and equipment in the NHS in Barnet or to a reduction in staff. Both things have been happening systematically over the years. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is grossly unfair and unreasonable, and that radical changes should be made to the RAWP formula?

Mr. Newton: I shall carefully study the somewhat complicated proposition that my hon. Friend has put to me. I make two points in immediate response. First, the distribution of funds to Barnet depends not on the RAWP formula in the straightforward sense but on the judgments that North West Thames region makes within its allocation.
Secondly, the RAWP formula contains an allowance for what is called the market forces factor, which seeks to reflect the extent to which pay rates are higher in London than elsewhere.

Ms. Walley: Will the Minister take on board the comments made to me by the chairman and members of the North Staffordshire district health authority when I met them on Wednesday last? They are most concerned about proposed changes in the RAWP formula which may well lead to North Staffordshire ending up with an even worse allocation than it now has. If inner-city areas such as this are to be protected and safeguarded, the Minister should consult them before coming up with new proposals for the RAWP formula.

Mr. Newton: The working party that has been examining the RAWP formula has been extensively representative of regions throughout the country. That is not to say that everyone will be pleased by its proposals, in advance of whose publication I cannot speculate further.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the RAWP formula takes into account the excellent work done by war memorial and cottage hospitals in serving their local communities? Will he reverse the decision of the Macclesfield health authority and ensure that the diminution of GP beds is reversed, and that the twilight hours services for the minor injuries unit in Congleton war memorial hospital are retained, so that that hospital can extend its useful work?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the RAWP formula can be expected to take account of particular patterns of service as distinct from the needs of an area. It sounds to me as if the specific proposals to which my hon. Friend refers would be likely to be opposed by the Community Health Council and then come to Ministers, in which case I should not comment.

Mr. Morley: In the context of the RAWP formula proposals, will the Minister also take into account the fact that my health authority in Scunthorpe is embarking on a major council programme, with new wards and a new AED? The district health authority is worried that there may not be sufficient fund allocations to staff those new wards, because of the resource implications compared with the capital implications.

Mr. Newton: That is a matter for the regional health authority rather than the RAWP formula. Most authorities, in determining their allocation to the districts, take account of what are called the revenue consequences of capital schemes. That explains some variations in distance from target.

Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend will know of the wide welcome given to the generous pay settlement for nurses. Will he bear in mind the effect of that settlement on the hospice movement, which is not centrally funded and for which, because of the workings of RAWP, the local district health authority is not able to provide extra money for nurses' pay?

Mr. Newton: The RAWP formula is being blamed for an enormous amount. I must repeat the answer that I have given on previous occasions. Health authorities have been given substantial additional funding in connection with


the nurses' pay award and they need to take that into account when considering their arrangements for hospices. Those arrangements vary from place to place.

Competitive Tendering

Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much health authorities have saved to date as a result of competitive tendering.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): Our latest estimate, for the quarter ending 31 March, shows that annual savings of about£106 million have been generated from contracts awarded for domestic cleaning, catering and laundry services during the initial round of competitive tendering, now virtually complete.

Mr. Page: Does not the size of those savings show how wise those people have been in insisting that the tendering process be introduced? Has my right hon. Friend any idea of how much more could be saved if all services capable of being tendered were put out to tender?

Mr. Moore: I am conscious of the amount that has been saved. It is an important addition to health care spending in the National Health Service. Only 75 per cent. of catering, 95 per cent. of domestic services and 97 per cent. of laundry services are out to competitive tender. Therefore, there is still some space for further savings in the areas that are already out to competitive tender.

Mr. Nellist: Has the Secretary of State investigated to find out how many jobs have been lost because of the introduction of competitive tendering? Has he investigated the consequences of that for the payment of benefits by the other side of his Department—the social security offices? Is it not often the case that the introduction of competitive tendering results not in a net saving for his Department, but merely in a transfer of profits to the firms, many of which are represented by Tory Members of Parliament?

Mr. Moore: I never cease to be bewildered by the way in which Opposition Members, and especially the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), seem to forget that the purpose of the National Health Service is to look after patients. Patients are the prime interest of the National Health Service. So utterly trapped are some Opposition Members by their relationship with their trade union bosses that they fail to understand that savings of about £100 million have gone to additional patient care. We should all welcome that.

Mr. Rathbone: With savings such as those and more expected, will my right hon. Friend consider making more resources available to meet the urgent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs contained in its report "Aids and Drug Misuse"? Some of my hon. Friends feel that unfortunately the Government are doing too little too late.

Mr. Moore: I am filled with admiration for the legitimate way in which my hon. Friend makes his point. We are looking at the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs recommendations and will come to the House with the advice that we receive. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's implied criticism that the Government have not been vigorous in trying to ensure that we attack the awful problem of drug abuse.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that in the Leeds Western health authority area the laundry services that were privatised under the direction of his Department are running at a loss? If so, is that not an indictment of the privatisation policy, because it undermines economic efficiency?

Mr. Moore: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask himself who is losing money in that instance. I imagine that it is a private sector company. He should be glad to see the efficient work that is being done through tenders that have gone out. I know that he will be interested to know that 85 per cent. of competitive tenders that have saved money have gone to in-house contractors who have improved the way in which they deliver their services and have therefore provided more money for the Health Service.

NHS Waiting Lists (Northern Region)

Mr. Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on National Health Service waiting lists in the northern region.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): The latest figures show that waiting lists in the northern region have been dropping sharply, from about 50,000 in September 1982 to about 36,000 now. Nine of the 16 districts report continued steady falls. This reflects commendably on all concerned.

Mr. Fallon: I thank my hon. Friend for an answer that is even more encouraging than I expected. Does that not show the success of the Government's initiatives in this area? Will she reassure Conservative Members that the current NHS review will have as its priority the interests, not of NHS staff or professionals, but of the customers, who in some areas are still waiting far too long for the treatment that they deserve?

Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am sure he realises that we have been exceptionally helpful to the Darlington health authority, which covers his constituency, by allocating £200,000 this year to help it to clear nearly 1,000 people from its waiting list. That was on top of the £160,000 extra that it received last year.
I note my hon. Friend's remarks at the end of his question, but point out that of those admitted to hospital half are admitted at once and the remainder within seven weeks.

Mr. Fearn: How many hospitals in the northern region are working under capacity? Are people on waiting lists from other areas being passed to those hospitals?

Mrs. Currie: I confess that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. We remain convinced that a number of hospitals in different parts of the country could use their capacity more productively.

Mr. Jopling: Does my hon. Friend agree that the waiting list figures are hugely encouraging? Will she ensure that the excellent new hospital being built in Kendal, south Cumbria, is completed on time so that those figures can come down even more rapidly?

Mrs. Currie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently laid the foundation stone for that hospital, and we look forward to it continuing its good work. As I am sure my right hon. Friend will know, in south Cumbria the cost per case is well below the national average.

Ms. Armstrong: What is the cost to the Northern regional health authority of farming out work to the private sector? —[HON. MEMBERS: Waiting lists."] I understand that the way that the Government have brought down waiting lists is by farming out work to the private sector, and the cost is incredible.

Mrs. Currie: The vast majority of the patients that I have just mentioned have been dealt with in the National Health Service, and we expect that broadly to continue. However, if a health authority finds that it can contract out some of its patients to the private sector, I think that those patients generally are pleased with the result.

Dame Jill Knight: Every right hon. and hon. Member in the House is aware of the importance of the northern region. However, will my hon. Friend give the rest of the country a word of encouragement on the vital matter of waiting lists?

Mrs. Currie: I am delighted to do so. In-patient waiting lists for England fell by about 1 per cent. between March and 30 September, and by about 12 per cent. since March 1979. That is a reduction of 90,000.

Ancillary Staffs (Pay and Conditions)

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to meet representatives of the ancillary staffs in the National Health Service to discuss pay and conditions.

Mr. Newton: The pay and conditions of service of NHS ancillary staff are matters for negotiation in the ancillary staffs Whitley council. I have no plans at this stage to meet staff representatives.

Dr. Reid: The Minister's answer is less than revealing. Is it not a fact that as late as yesterday he refused a formal request to meet the ancillary staff representatives? Was that not because he would have found his miserable 4·8 per cent. pay offer indefensible?
Is the Minister aware that 400,000 ancillary staff are excluded from the nurses' pay review and that they earn less than £80 for a 40-hour week? Is he further aware that 40 per cent. of male ancillary staff and 70 per cent. of female ancillary staff earn less than £6,000 a year? Has he no compassion for both patients and staff? What will he do to rectify that pathetic level of wages?

Mr. Newton: I have three points to make. First, I have not refused to meet the staff side. I said that I did not think it appropriate at the moment. However, I would not rule it out later.
Secondly, the offer is not 4·8 per cent., it is 5·4 per cent., which is significantly more than ancillary workers received last year.
Thirdly, we have offered to talk about a reduction of one hour in the working week, together with other changes. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he starts attacking me.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might solve a great many problems if the ancillary workers' pay review was carried out on a local rather than a national basis? Would that not mean that local health authorities could take the local conditions into account, especially for clerical and secretarial work?

Mr. Newton: We have said, in general terms, that we want to move towards greater local flexibility within a centrally determined structure. However, that is under discussion more in respect of administrative and clerical staff than ancillary workers. Of course, a great deal of flexibility is already reflected in local bonus schemes and other arrangements.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister take this opportunity to put it on record that the nurses and doctors cannot run the hospitals without domestics, laboratory staff and medical secretaries, who are all part of the health team? How can he claim that it is purely a matter for the Whitley council when, after the talks broke down last month, the health authorities made it plain that they could not fund an improved offer without more money'
As the right hon. Gentleman has responsibility for the money available to the health authorities, why does he not face up to that by meeting the staff side and explaining why he thinks that some of the worst-paid people in Britain should settle for a wage increase that is well below the national average?

Mr. Newton: I have already said that the pay offer to ancillary staff is larger than they received last year. I must make it clear that the staff side has attached particular importance to a reduction in the working week, and the Government have made a suggestion about that that needs to be talked through.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Andrew Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to extend beyond one year the period of transitional protection for claimants of housing benefit announced on 27 April.

Mr. Scott: Like all transitional payments, these will be phased out as circumstances change and other benefits increase. However, the payments will not be limited to one year, and they may last for several years in cases where the reduction in benefit is substantial.

Mr. Bowden: I am most grateful for that encouraging answer. Will my hon. Friend always bear in mind that he is dealing with a war-time generation of pensioners, especially war widows, some of whom have had their incomes cut this year? Is he aware that some of those war widows are not treated as well as they would be in other nations? I hope that he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Scott: I shall bear that in mind. It is worth mentioning that those on income support will be fully protected during the transitional period. We have introduced a new housing benefit scheme and will monitor that carefully. I am, of course, conscious of the fact to which my hon. Friend alluded.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that a number of old-age pensioners in my constituency receive a coal allowance because they worked in the pits all their lives? Previously, that allowance has not been assessed for


housing benefit purposes. Is he further aware that some pensioners have moved to gas-heated houses and receive a monetary allowance from British Coal, which is being assessed for housing benefit purposes? Some of them are worse off by more than £6 a week. As I am sure that the Minister does not want such a vindictive anomaly to continue, will he put it right as quickly as possible?

Mr. Scott: Any concessional coal would be covered by the transitional protection. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that war pensioners will benefit under the transitional arrangements?

Mr. Scott: Of course.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister confirm that, despite transitional protection, millions of people still face a drastic cut in their standard of living, which will merely be phased rather than immediate? Even if the Government maintain the concessions forced on them this year, will not the substantial rent rises that follow the enactment of the Housing Bill next year mean losses as enormous as those from which the Government abruptly retreated?

Mr. Scott: It must be clearly understood that there will be full protection of housing benfit for rent rises that occur next year. In any case, there is full and absolute protection for income support beneficiaries.
I am absolutely convinced—as, I think, the House is —that the new system of housing benefit is vastly preferable to the one that went before. We have ensured that those affected unduly harshly by the transition will be protected in cash terms. That is surely worthy of praise rather than of criticism.

Maternity Benefits

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mothers in the last 10 years have been disqualified from receiving maternity benefits; and how many of these had 49 stamps or credits in the appropriate qualifying year.

Mr. Portillo: Between April 1983 and December 1986, the earliest and latest dates for which figures are available, 395,500 were disallowed. Only during the short period between October 1986 and April 1987 would a woman with a record of 49 contributions paid or credited have been disqualified from receiving maternity allowance. The number so affected must be very small indeed.

Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As the exact numbers are not known and very small indeed, it is possible that my constituent, Mrs. Watson, is the only woman in the country who has been so affected and will be the only woman so affected because the Government have since changed the law, so that people who would have lost benefit simply because they were paid monthly rather than weekly will not be denied benefit. Will my hon. Friend reconsider giving that lady the benefit to which she would have been entitled if her employer had paid her weekly rather than monthly?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the system has changed so that what now matters is whether the lady was recently in employment. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome that change, but I should point out

that, in the case of his constituent, it was not just a matter of the way in which we applied the rules. We had also to bear in mind the fact that, while the lady was unemployed, she went abroad for two weeks and was therefore unable to have the credit. If she had not gone abroad, she would have had 51 credits.

Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister agree that the problem would not have arisen if the situation in which someone could make reduced contributions and pay slightly less than the full contribution in terms of the stamp had not been changed in the Social Security Act 1986? Will the Minister further explain how much money the Government have saved by scrapping that reduced rate?

Mr. Portillo: Maternity benefit should be paid to people who leave work because they are pregnant and are used to receiving their money from work. The new statutory maternity payment system and the maternity allowance address that need. The old system, under which we went back to some distant year to see what national insurance contributions had been paid, was much less effective in meeting that need.

Prematurity and Low Birth-weight

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the main known factors in prematurity and low birth-weight in babies.

Mr. Moore: The cause of prematurity or low birth-weight in babies is in most cases not known. Apart from clinical factors of various kinds relating to the pregnancy, it is becoming increasingly clear that smoking by pregnant women and significant consumption of alcohol may be important in some cases.

Mr. Shaw: Despite those disadvantages in mothers' health, is it not true that under this Government infant mortality has reduced considerably and that we have a much improved situation, which must be partially due to the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the first rate technological equipment now available in hospitals as a result of the Government's initiatives? My local hospital in Dover has some first-rate examples of such equipment, which I saw recently.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The figures show that the infant mortality rate has fallen from 12·9 per thousand births in 1978 to 9.1 in 1987, which is a reduction of 29 per cent. while the Government have been in office.

Mrs. Wise: Does the Minister acknowledge that cot deaths are increasing? Will he give due consideration to the submission from the National Childbirth Trust, which asks him to consider some possible causes of that, including excessive obstetric interference and bad housing and poverty?

Mr. Moore: I shall certainly consider the points to which the hon. Lady referred. More work is clearly needed in this area, but she may not be aware that recent work confirms part of the point that she is making about the increase in the sudden infant death syndrome. She may not be aware that, contrary to what she implied, the studies in relation to 1986 show that the increase in cot deaths is, if concentrated in any social class, concentrated in social class V among boys. The hon. Lady's point is certainly


important and we must look further into this matter, but, on the evidence so far, the increase does not relate to social class variations.

Cervical Cancer

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the progress of the cervical cancer screening programme.

Mrs. Currie: By the end of April all 190 district health authorities in England had implemented a computerised call and recall system for cervical cancer screening. The programme will make a major contribution to the health of our women and will save many lives in the years to come.

Mr. Arbuthnot: As most deaths from cervical cancer occur in women who have never had a smear test and as, if they had had a test, the chances are that the condition would have been 100 per cent. curable, does my hon. Friend agree that the areas on which the Government should be concentrating are, first, to encourage women to register with general practitioners and, secondly, to publicise the effective success of smear tests?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In those parts of the country where the response rate is not as high as we had hoped, one reason is that the registers are not accurate. We urge all women who move house to tell their GPs and to ensure that the address on the register is correct.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that Sheffield health authority has encountered some centrally determined constraints in the direction of its cervical cancer screening programme, notably computer software which does not enable the health authority to call clients and search for them on a postcode basis? Is he further aware that although that needs only a small modification, and although the authority has made many representations, nothing has been done?

Mrs. Currie: Yes, and we are working on some aspects of the software. We are content that we have a system that works throughout the country and we are now seeing what improvements and modifications we can make.

Pensioners (Savings)

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of pensioners receive income from savings.

Mr. Moore: The proportion of pensioners with income from savings has risen from 62 per cent. in 1979 to over 70 per cent. in 1985. Over that period incomes from that source went up by over 52 per cent. in real terms, compared with a decrease of 16 per cent. under the previous Administration. By 1985 the proportion of recently retired pensioners with some form of income other than state benefits had risen to over 85 per cent.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is all part of a picture of growing prosperity and choice for pensioners and that, as a whole, pensioners' incomes have risen twice as fast as those of the population generally since this Government came to power?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In fact, pensioners' incomes have increased in percentage terms faster than those of people in work and are now worth 60 per cent. of the incomes of the working population, which is higher than in 1979.

Disabled People

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much spending on benefits for disabled people has changed since 1979.

Mr. Scott: Spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has increased by £3 billion in real terms since 1978–79. This is a real increase of over 80 per cent.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that significant contribution. Will he confirm that the Independent Living Fund will not be confined to those on income support?

Mr. Scott: Yes, I can confirm that. Independent Living Fund assistance will go to those above income support level who need help, because they are severely disabled, to maintain their place in the community or to avoid institutionalisation.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister please explain how a single parent with a 20-year-old mentally handicapped son has lost £3 per week because of the flat-rate surcharge that the Government have introduced? How can he square that with saying that the Government are targeting assistance on those who are most vulnerable and most in need in our society when that single parent family is £3 per week worse off because of the Government's target? I suggest that that is not good aim.

Mr. Scott: If I recognise the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, it involves the impact of non-dependent deductions. The House will recognise that as a principle is right that such deductions should take place, but because of the special circumstances affecting the lady in that case the non-dependent deductions are set at a lower level.

Mr. Rowe: The Government are to be congratulated on the considerable improvement in the standards of living of disabled people, but does my hon. Friend agree that a further improvement in their standard of living could be achieved if builders were more ready to build houses which, from the beginning, could be lived in easily by disabled people, rather than expecting disabled people, at the height of their disability, to incur enormous expenditure in adapting a house?

Mr. Scott: Yes, except that I believe that disabled people should have as much freedom of choice in the location in which they live as other citizens, as far as that is possible. Therefore, it is right that either they or the local social services department, where appropriate, should move swiftly to provide the adaptions that are necessary for them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Can the Minister tell the House when the Government expect to achieve the objective of the Disability Income Group, which aims to persuade the Government that people should receive benefit regardless of how their disability arose, whether from birth or


through an accident at work or at home? In short, when will the Government end discrimination against people with disability?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman, if he listened to my original answer, will realise that, far from being discriminated against, disabled people have been treated particularly favourably throughout the lifetime of this Government. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the OPCS findings will be coming out in the course of the next few months, and we shall then be looking at the whole range of disability benefits in the light of its findings.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including a meeting with the President of Malawi. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Coombs: Following the recent agreement with the Irish Government on new extradition rules, does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's extraordinary decision by an Irish court to refuse to extradite Patrick McVeigh, the suspected terrorist, is bound to raise considerable suspicions in this country about the Irish commitment to stamp out terrorism? Will she agree to see the Irish Prime Minister to ensure that this kind of extraordinary and capricious legal decision is not repeated, and ensure that in future suspected terrorists are not protected from being brought to justice?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be making a full statement later. I agree with my hon. Friend that the judgment of the district court is deeply dismaying, because we had thought that effective extradition arrangements now existed. The Crown Prosecution Service expressly asked whether further evidence from the United Kingdom on identification was needed, and was told that it was not. We are holding urgent consultations with the Irish authorities to deal with the implications of the decision. I understand that the Irish Minister of Justice will be making a statement in the Dail this afternoon. I believe that we shall defeat terrorism only when the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the border are actively committed to doing so.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first share the Prime Minister's sense of dismay at the confusion that arose and her hope for an outcome that will ensure that there is an even more effective set of measures against terrorism or suspected terrorism?
Following the judgment of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal last Friday that the Government have acted illegally in depriving over 400,000 low-income pensioners of housing benefit supplement, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that she will not appeal against the judgment and that she will not introduce legislation to reverse the effects of that judgment? The Government have fouled up. Will they pay up?

The Prime Minister: No. We have not seen the tribunal's written decision, which may not be available for some weeks, but it will be for the chief adjudication officer to decide whether to appeal once the decision is available. It is worth remembering that an appeals tribunal decision is only the first step, and I am advised that, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it applies only to the individual cases decided—[Interruption]—yes, indeed—and does not constitute a precedent. It is a matter for the chief adjudication officer to decide whether to appeal to a court of law.

Mr. Kinnock: When we are talking about low-income pensioners, that attitude in that answer manifests the mentality of a persecutor. It also manifests, if the right hon. Lady insists on confining the judgment to just four people, a very extraordinary sense of justice and of precedent. These people are by definition already on very low incomes. Why does the Prime Minister not simply obey the law of the land as it stands and the law of common humanity and ensure that these people lose absolutely nothing, even in the wake of the loss of housing benefit supplement?

The Prime Minister: Having for years handled some of these things as a junior Minister in that Department, may I point out that these are the statutory independent adjudicating authorities, not the High Court? The independent adjudicating authorities give verdicts on individual cases. That is why at present the verdict applies only to those cases. It is for the top of those independent adjudicating authorities, the chief adjudicating officer, to decide whether to take it to a court of law. That is the law.

Mr. Kinnock: We know that the word "independence" has different meanings for the Government in different sets of circumstances. Sometimes the Government treat the law in the same way as children treat Ludo: if they win that is the end of the matter; if others win it is the best of three. Will the Prime Minister realise the circumstances, the anxieties and the low incomes of these people and ensure that none of them will be losers?

The Prime Minister: It remains as I said earlier. It is the law that—[Interruption.] Yes, it is for the law, and we on this side obey the law. That is what the rule of law is all about. It will be for the chief adjudicating officer to decide whether to appeal once the decision is available. The right hon. Gentleman jumps to his conclusion before we have even seen the tribunal's recommendation.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that relations between herself and her Secretary of State for Defence are wholly harmonious, that he will not be humiliated and that, therefore, the Press Association can retire to bed at a reasonable hour?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the point more effectively than I could. Relations between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and No. 10 are excellent, as is the defence of the country under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kennedy: In view of the weekend reports concerning likely Government legislation on official secrets, can the Prime Minister give both sides of the House an assurance that in cases such as the Clive Ponting trial, for example, trial by jury will remain the norm, and that the Government will not seek to legislate in such a way as to make it impossible for a defence based on the concept of the public good to be mounted, as there are many on both sides of the House who believe that the political interest of a Government and the overriding public interest of the state must never be regarded as synonomous?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government are considering a revised Bill. Before that is published, a White Paper will of course, be published for debate in the House.

Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scenes of football hooliganism that we have seen recently at home and in Europe will lead to the destruction of football as a sport as we know it? If there is no improvement, will she consider advising the Football Association not to allow English clubs to compete in European competitions?

he Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the scenes we have seen on our television screens again are a disgrace to civilised society and made us all feel thoroughly ashamed if any of our people were involved in them. I looked back this morning over the Popplewell report to see whether all the steps which were then recommended had been taken at home and in connection with international competitions, and to see whether we were getting—[Interruption.]This is a matter that greatly concerns the Government and we want to see whether all the proposed steps towards international co-operation are taken. I shall be having a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport on Thursday morning. Of course, it is easier to pose the question than it is to find a sure way of stopping what is happening, catching and convicting the criminals, and having them strictly sentenced. I agree with my hon. Friend that the survival of football as a spectator sport is in question.

Mr. Molyneaux: In view of yesterday's extradition failure, will the Prime Minister consider convening a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council established in 1981 to consider all those non-Northern Ireland matters and disputes which the present Anglo-Irish Agreement is far too narrow to resolve?

The Prime Minister: No, I see little point in convening that intergovernmental council. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, one is much more likely to be convened under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Before deciding on any further steps we should hear what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has to say today and what is said in the Dail later.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the outcome in the Dublin court yesterday was

not the result of confusion on this side of the water, that the papers were in order, and that everything was done under the recent agreement, but that the judge still refused to give the proper sentence that should have been passed? Will she assure the House also that it will be the policy of her Government to have the same extradition treaty with the Republic of Ireland as has been operated between the United Kingdom and every other part of the European Community?

The Prime Minister: We had thought that effective extradition arrangements existed, which is why we were deeply dismayed at the decision of that particular court. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Crown Prosecution Service did everything that it could. It expressly asked whether further evidence on identification was needed from the United Kingdom and was specifically told that it was not. There was no fault on this side of the water or on this side of that border. That the extradition did not go through was not our fault.

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Leighton: Has the Prime Minister noticed that, after eight years of her government of Britain, where private greed is now the official religion, and where we are told that society no longer exists but only the individual, the result has been a rising flood of crime, violence, City fraud, family breakdown, homelessness, drug addiction and football hooliganism? When the Prime Minister surveys that social sickness arid disorder, of which is she most proud?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Popplewell report on football hooliganism he will see that the problem originated very much earlier this century, and it has been the subject of a number of previous reports. The hon. Gentleman will see also in the sections relating to violence that there has always been, and always will he, violence. The question is how to contain that violence, catch those who are guilty, convict them, and give them stiff sentences. We are very much better off with more, better-paid and properly equipped police in Britain than we would have been had the Opposition been in power and we had fewer police.

Mr. Hayes: When my right hon. Friend next sees her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, will she ask him to ring the Press Association and make a statement explaining that missile-for-missile reduction is not a very good idea if the other side has more missiles?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point. There is no use whatsoever in following what was proposed at one stage and having a kind of multilateral disarmament agreement with the other side. That would involve giving up 100 per cent. of our Trident missiles in return for the Soviet Union giving up 3 per cent. of her strategic weapons.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: May I tell the right hon. Lady that I have a constituent, John Callaghan, who, as a young man, served this country with distinction? In 1939 he served in the desert, in Italy, and from Normandy right through to Germany. After retiring recently, until two months ago he enjoyed a rent rebate, but because of Government measures he now has to find another £30 per month. Is that not a shameful way to treat a man who has served this country so well?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I do know that there is a case, which may or may not be the same, which has received a great deal of publicity recently, which was not to do with the reforms, merely with the change from invalidity benefit to retirement pension, which always takes place at 65. I am not certain whether that is the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, if he has a case to raise he should take it up with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security.

Valleys Programme

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who are not remaining for the statement, please leave the Chamber quietly?

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the valleys programme.
I have today published a programme for the south Wales valleys. Copies of the programme document have been placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.
I would like to thank the local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board, the Training Commission, the public utilities, the health authorities, the CBI, the Welsh TUC, the voluntary organisations and the industrialists and business men who have been consulted to produce a comprehensive programme—[interruption]—a programme that will significantly improve the economy and the quality of life in the Valleys over the next few years.

Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important statement for Wales, but I regret that we cannot hear the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat—will those hon. Members who are not remaining please leave quietly?

Mr. Walker: In recent years many new factories have been built and occupied. Inward investment has been attracted, many thousands of homes have been improved, and many acres of derelict land have been cleared.
The objective of the programme is to accelerate these improvements to create a viable and diverse economy, and to create conditions that provide a good quality of life for the people of the valleys.
Over several decades the decline in the numbers employed in the coal and steel industries has created high levels of unemployment. These industries have also left serious dereliction which we are now tackling.
The programme I have announced is without parallel in the history of the valleys—a 15-point programme for new and small businesses which includes two new loan schemes, new training schemes and a new technology development fund. A new quality and design centre will be established. This will serve all Wales, but be based in the valleys.
The Welsh Development Agency's advance factory and workshop building programme will be trebled. Advance factories, together with special purpose factories, and around 140 new workshop units will in combination provide by far the biggest factory building programe in the history of the valleys. A new business centre and WDA regional office will be created at Merthyr Tydfil.
Regional assistance in the financial year 1988–89 will he more than a third up on the previous year. I am delighted to tell the House that, in the 15 months ending 31 March this year, 1,333 applications were received for regional development grants in the valleys. The applications represent an investment of £620 million creating 23,460 new jobs. Some of these applications might be rejected and others not fulfilled. What is certain is that the valleys are involved in an unprecedented level of industrial investment.
The levels of Government aid envisaged over the next three years would on past experience create over £1 billion of private investment and 25,000 to 30,000 additional jobs.
The Training Commission, which I have consulted, intends to spend an average of £1 million per week over the next three years on training and educational programmes in the valleys. We intend to create in each and every valley new and close links between the schools and commerce and industry.
The Welsh Development Agency will treble its programmes to provide education advice and enterprise training for those in the valleys who wish to become self-employed and create new businesses.
A new drive will be made for the tourist industry. Apart from the substantial investment in the Ebbw Vale garden festival, we will proceed with the development of the Rhondda heritage park and many other developments. The private sector will be investing heavily in the tourist industries, and two major firms alone intend to invest £40 million over the next three years. Action will be taken to create a number of excellent venues in the valleys for music and the arts.
Expenditure on the clearance of derelict land in 1988–89 will be 50 per cent. more than last year, and £42·5 million will be spent over the full three years in the biggest derelict land clearance programme in the history of the valleys. A wide range of schemes will be provided for improving shopping centres and retailing. A range of further investments will be made in hospitals and health centres, and schemes will be pursued to assist the elderly particularly, and to improve primary health care.
In housing, we hope to increase substantially the number of house improvements under enveloping schemes, to increase the activities of the housing associations and to double the number of private sector new housing starts over the next three years. Altogether 32,000 houses should be improved and more than 10,000 new homes built over the next three years.
This is a programme that will bring substantial improvements to the economy, the environment and the quality of life in the valleys—a programme that contains within it the largest derelict land clearance programmes, factory building programmes, training programmes and', boost to tourism in the history of the valleys. It is also a programme that will bring about a further substantial improvement in the quality of health care, and that recognises the strong community and cultural tradition of the valleys. It is a programme that will provide a fine foundation for future activity—a foundation that will give the people of the valleys an opportunity to see that their efforts, enthusiasm and enterprise will result in a strong economy and good quality of life with which to enter the next century.

Mr. Alan Williams: May I thank the Secretary of State for making this statement, rather belatedly, and regret that it was not made here in the House before he had his press conference this morning in Wales?
May I also say that we all want more resources and a solution to the problems of the valleys, but that having looked at the press releases that the Secretary of State issued today, I feel that most seem to be a combination of the ancient, the inadequate and the irrelevant? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the diagnosis that we are


talking about an area of unusual poverty, an abnormally high incidence of ill health, abnormal unemployment and desperately inadequate housing?
Will he confirm that the £500 million that the Government have announced for the next three years for this area of severe deprivation is the same amount that the Porsche-driving yuppies of the south-east will receive every six months as a result of the Chancellor's Budget? Will he also confirm that £250 million of this money is merely giving back to the valleys money that was stolen from them in the alteration of the rate support grant under the present Administration?
Does the Secretary of State remember his own Department's report—he should, as it is only a couple of weeks old—which showed that £400 million is needed for house repairs and renovation alone in these areas, that one in 10 houses in Mid Glamorgan are unfit, and that in the Cynon valley as many as one in six are unfit? Against that massive £400 million need, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify a mere £8 million extra for house repairs in this announcement? Will he confirm that, even taken with the £20 million already announced for enveloping for the valleys, the total house repair finance that he is providing is well below the £40 million that the brewers are providing for pub restoration in the valleys of Wales? Will he confirm that the two companies that he is talking about which are about to invest £40 million in the valleys are the brewers?
May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I welcome the refurbishment of the miners' institutes? At least that will give a pleasant surrounding for the miners whom he has made redundant to sit and contemplate their continuing unemployment. Does he recollect his boast in The Observerthat he obtained every penny that he asked for from the Cabinet? Will he tell us whether in this package there is any new money at all from the Government for Wales? If so, how much? If not, why not? Did he ask for it, or did he not? If he did not, why not? If he did, what happened?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although he claims to have had every penny he asked for, he did not obtain any money at all for the new hospital for Mid Glamorgan, which is desperately needed in an area with the second highest mortality rates in the United Kingdom and with the highest percentage of the permanently sick?
I welcome, as I am sure do all hon. Members, the new WDA factories. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the WDA formula of three jobs for every 1,000 sq ft of factory space will provide fewer than 4,000 jobs in an area with more than 40,000 unemployed?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree also that the increased applications for regional development grants, to which he referred and about which he boasts, are actually the result of a panic rush to beat the deadline for the abolition of regional development grants on 31 March and that some of them have been made as insurance applications and many of them will never take place? Alternatively, is he saying that he now is so convinced of the effectiveness of the regional development grant that he has come here today to announce that he intends to restore it?
I have seen reports in the press that the Secretary of State hopes to cut unemployment in the valleys by 26,000. Is that a firm target? Is it a target that he is willing to state here today? Is he willing to stand by its achievements?

Mr. Walker: No wonder there was virtually not a murmur from the Opposition Benches when the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) sat down. For a representative of the Labour party whose Members represent the valleys to greet a programme of this scale and dimension in that way was quite a remarkable performance.
Taking the items that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, with regard to house improvements in the valleys, yes, the housing conditions are very bad. They were very bad in 1979, when this Government came to power. The reality is that, in one year, this Government improved more houses than in the whole five years of a Labour Government. How remarkable it is that now we announce that we are going to improve another 32,000 houses, the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not enough.
The £500 million to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is not the totality of public expenditure. Public expenditure in the valleys—aside from the £500 million—on education, health and local government services, is £50 per week per household, quite apart from the £500 million on the specific items that I have mentioned today.
This is the biggest factory building programme—to which the right hon. Gentleman says, "But it provides only 4,000 new jobs." That is the WDA factory building programme. A massive factory building programme will take place as a result of the enormous investment taking place. In that programme, I mentioned just 11 companies, none of them brewing companies, in the valleys.
In the next three years, 11 valley companies will invest £200 million in capital investment. As a result of the Government's decision, we therefore have the biggest ever derelict land clearance programme; the biggest ever factory building programme; the biggest ever total of applications for regional assistance; and an enormous programme for house improvement. If the Labour party does not greet that, the people of the valleys will.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The people of Wales will be saddened, but in no way surprised, by the mean-spirited and pettifogging response by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Willliams) to this most imaginative and far-reaching proposal which has brought fresh hope to the people of south Wales. If the information is available, will my hon. Friend say how much money is being made available for industrial expansion and economic recovery?
Now that my right hon. Friend has set south Wales firmly back on the road to economic recovery, will he pay some attention to the problems of small but obstinate areas of dereliction and industrial decay in north Wales, particularly in the west end of Rhyl in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: The derelict land clearance programmes and the urban renewal programmes will take place throughout the Principality, including north Wales. Over three years, £500 million will be spent on schemes which can be described as having a direct economic impact—the urban aid programme, Government grants for regional assistance, the factory building programme and the


derelict land clearance programme. That works out at £1,900 for each household in the valleys or £13,500 for each person currently unemployed.

Mr. Geraint Howells: After the 15 years that I have had the privilege of representing a Welsh constituency, as a Liberal, I believe that we are honourbound as politicians to say thank you now and again to the Secretary of State for Wales, whether he is a Socialist or a Conservative; and over the years I have done just that. I welcome this initiative for south Wales as a step in the right direction, although it may be long overdue and the present aid may be insufficient. Will the Secretary of State assure the Welsh people and those responsible for this initiative in the valleys that, if the scheme goes well during the next two years, he will give extra financial aid to those responsible? The state of Welsh language and culture causes great anxiety to many of us in Wales. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will make a proviso to look after those interests?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I believe that in the valleys, people of every political persuasion will be pleased with the dimensions of the programme. More needs to be done through the educational system and elsewhere to encourage the Welsh language and culture. When the hon. Gentleman examines the detail of the programme, he will see that one of the exciting developments is for six major buildings in the valleys which will become important locations for the performance of music and the arts, which are important to valley communities.
The problems of the valleys are of considerable dimensions. It will take time to change the area, which has faced difficulties, dereliction, unemployment, and a lack of training for the diverse economy that is now developing, into an active successful commercial area. I shall always endeavour to take decisions to invest in doing just that.

Mr. Paul Marland: Like other Conservative Members, I was astonished at the sour reaction of the Labour party to the announcement of this initiative, which will certainly bring fresh vigour to those living in the valleys. When, in 1970, I stood as a candidate in Islwyn, the people of that district never dreamt of opportunities like this, but I suppose that it was not surprising, when they had been in the total grip of the Labour party for so long, that the future looked completely bleak.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I made the announcement in the valleys because I wanted to make it to the people of the valleys. In all my consultations and talks, local authority leaders, many of whom are of the opposite persuasion, were completely collaborative. I am sure that they will welcome many of these proposals.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I am the first valley Member of Parliament to speak on this statement. I listened with interest to the Secretary of State boasting about these home improvement moneys and the great burst of effort in one year, which he described as involving far more investment than ever before. Why is the Secretary of State now turning off the tap? It is acknowledged in the report that owner-occupation has increased from 59 per cent. to 66 per cent. My constituency has the highest owner-occupation rate in the United Kingdom, which is

about 79 to 80 per cent. There are 18,000 houses that are substandard and need improvement grants. The report is not enough. More is needed in this vital area.
The valley people are a proud people. We have a culture, a tradition and a structure which is specially ours. People want to stay in the valleys, which is why they are purchasing their homes, but they need help. Why is the Secretary of State not investing money to give help in that area?

Mr. Walker: This morning, one of my pleasant tasks was to open a new housing development in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rhonda (Mr. Rogers). I am glad to say that, during that ceremony, the people involved announced that they intended to embark upon two similar projects in the valleys.
As regards housing, the enveloping schemes have been extremely successful and within the next three years we intend substantially to increase such schemes. Our target for improvement is 32,000 more houses. That will mean that, since this Government came to power, 77,000 houses will be improved in the valleys—that is, approaching one in three of all homes. It is, of course, an important programme. Apart from housing, I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted at the decision on the Rhondda heritage park and the fact that in the coming year land reclamation in the Rhonda will be worth £1 million and that £650,000 of factory building will take place.

Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the success of the scheme depends upon the response from the south Wales valleys. I was born in south Wales and spent most of my life there, and I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt initiatives to encourage skills and self-employment in the valleys.

Mr. Walker: The Training Commission will spend £1 million a week in the valleys in the next three years. I am also pleased to say that the advice and assistance given by the WDA to those who wish to become self employed and start their own business will be trebled in that period. There is a 15-point programme to encourage small businesses in the valleys.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I am pleased to note that the report in The Guardianof this morning concerning the area of the initiative—a band from Gwent in the east to Afan in the west—has proved to be unfounded. Frankly, if that hand had obtained, it would have been a disaster because it would have left out the most important valleys. What projects will the money attract? Will it mean that the road improvement schemes in the Neath and the Swansea valleys will be expedited? Will the geological conditions that have caused such trouble in places such as Panteg in the Swansea valley, also qualify for funding by the initiatives?

Mr. Walker: With regard to funding schemes, it should be noted that the urban development programme will be increased by 38 per cent. We shall consider all the projects and applications to that programme carefully and objectively to get the best value for money. There will be a substantial increase in such urban development activities.
Obviously, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) approves of the final map upon


which we decided, which includes the valleys he mentioned. This year, a whole range of projects will take place in his constituency.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I grew up in the Welsh valleys, but was obliged to leave because of lack of employment opportunities as a Conservative Member of Parliament. I welcome the initiatives that my right hon. Friend has announced today. Is he rather surprised at the somewhat ungenerous response from the Labour party, considering that, in its day, it arranged neither a press conference nor a statement in this House because there were no initiatives? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most successful forms of regeneration are those that harness the huge resources of the private sector to the public sector, as with the London docklands? What part will the private sector play in the initiative that my right hon. Friend has announced?

Mr. Walker: The most important aspect of this initiative is that one is moving from an economy that was totally dependent upon a couple of nationalised industries and local government employment to a diverse free-enterprise economy. If my hon. Friend studies the full programme, he will note that we analyse 11 firms in the valleys. Three of those companies are inward investment firms, two come from Japan, and one from Germany and they are large, medium and small firms. In total those 11 firms alone will invest £200 million of their money in the next three years. The applications for regional development grant and regional selective assistance will provoke at least £1 billion of private investment. So we are moving towards a diverse, privately owned free enterprise economy in the valleys.

Mr. Barry Jones: How much new money is involved? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to strengthen the WDA, which is the powerhouse of his scheme, in salaries, manpower and training? How will he assure county councils such as those of Clwyd and Gwynedd that the necessary investment in the valleys is not the precursor of a famine of funds for the north?
The valleys deserve social justice, and the objectives of the initiative are to be welcomed. The Secretary of State should remember that it was the valleys, with their coal and steel production in the last century and early in this, that made our nation a front-rank power—and they should have social justice.

Mr. Walker: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. In view of the damage done and the problems that have been caused to the valleys in the course of this century, there is a national duty to tackle this problem. I assure him that the activities of the WDA and the factory building and urban development programmes in north Wales will be unaffected by these proposals; they will, I am glad to say, go ahead at an accelerated rate.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The Secretary of State will know that I represent the major opposition party in the valleys. On behalf of all our councillors in local authorities there, I say that he certainly has their support for carrying out this programme. We welcome its concept and framework; it is a broad-ranging programme that takes in cultural as well as economic activity.
I want to ask, first, about the availability of commercial capital, about which the right hon. Gentleman has been a little coy. In other regional initiatives in England by development corporations, there is much more commercial funding up front—and it is clearly stated as such. It does not seem to be available in this programme.
Secondly, how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ensure that there will be additional European Community funding for this? Can he give us any news about the integrated operation programme for the valleys? We warmly welcome the IOP announced for other parts of Wales.

Mr. Walker: On the latter point, I think that £25 million has already been allocated to one part of the valleys, and we are hoping that at least another £100 million will become available in the forthcoming period. Of course, that is subject to negotiations in Brussels.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the scheme in general. In the context of commercial funding, there are two important aspects for smaller businesses: the two new loan schemes that the WDA operates which are mentioned in the programme. I am also glad that the 3i's—Investors in Industry—the major source of venture capital, has decided to increase its investment in the valleys by two thirds.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State understand that many of us who represent valley communities have been waiting patiently for this statement? Some of us are sad about it because we feel that he has not taken the initiative we thought he would.
I ask first about a matter that was not clear from answers to questions asked earlier. A point of order was raised yesterday about the public expenditure White Paper published in February, and page 35 was mentioned. Has the Secretary of State been able to persuade the Cabinet to allow new money for this valleys initiative? When I looked at the map and read hurriedly through his statement, I found that the Ogmore constituency, which contains the four valleys of Maesteg, Ogmore, Garw and Gilfach Goch, had been neglected. The only addition shown in the initiative is some funding for the refurbishment of the Blaengarw workman's institute. What will that do to help the 5,000 miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please be brief?

Mr. Powell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a valley initiative for the whole of my constituency. It is very important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that it is very important to the hon. Gentleman, but we are to have two other statements.

Mr. Powell: I shall not be much longer, but I must emphasise to the Secretary of State that since 1979, 5,000 miners have been put on the dole in the Ogmore constituency. In addition, 5,000 steelworkers have been thrown out of work. That means that in my constituency 10,000 people have been put out of work. The whole initiative would not employ all those people.

Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman being interested in the detail of the programme and in how it affects his constituency. I agree that his constituency has all the problems. He may be pleased to know that, in the


financial year 1988–89 alone, £685,000 will be spent on continued work on the Maesteg town centre, that £400,000 will be spent on land reclamation in his constituency, and that £500,000 will be spent on new factory building.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: In constituency terms I welcome the Pentrebach-Dowlais road development. It is an important link and I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about it. Will he confirm that the British Coal Opencast Executive proposals will now fall because they totally impede that development?
Why has the Minister not listened to us on the central question of home improvements and housing repair? Individuals, as opposed to enveloping schemes, now have a backlog of requests and applications that go back four years. Why will the Minister not unlock this backlog? Mid Glamorgan area health authority has one of the most pressing demands in Wales, yet health matters make up the weakest part of the Minister's initiative. Wards such as the St. Tydfil ward remain closed and the initiative does not address hospital capital and current requirements. We are deeply disappointed with that part of the initiative.

Mr. Walker: As one of the hon. Members who represents part of the valleys, the hon. Gentleman has no right to be disappointed with the initiative. Apart from the major road improvement scheme about which he rightly says he has constantly pressed and which he says is very important, in the current financial year £2,700,000 will be spent on new factory building and £500,000 will be spent on clearing derelict land. In addition, £947,000 will be spent on the continuation of improvements to Merthyr town centre. In total, the impact on Merthyr in one year alone will be considerable. The hon. Gentleman spoke about housing improvements. Since 1979, we have improved 45,000 houses, and in the next three years we intend to improve another 32,000.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I wish I could share the Secretary of State's considerable euphoria about his statement, but unfortunately I cannot. There will be £8 million for housing. In my constituency, where more than half the private housing is unfit for human habitation, we need £64 million to improve it. He is offering £8 million for the whole of the valleys, and that puts the matter in context. He has made great play of land reclamation. There are 34,000 acres of derelict land in Wales and the Secretary of State is offering money to improve 2,500 acres. We lag far behind England and Scotland in the clearance of derelict land. Since 1979, the Welsh Office has cut the programme of land clearance in Wales.
The Minister is making available £30 million of public money for the Cardiff bay development. I do not begrudge Cardiff that money, but were it not for the valleys, Cardiff would not exist at all. Of all the indices, the argument on social and economic grounds for improving the situation in the valleys is enormous. The Secretary of State is following his mistress's philosophy, which is to give to the rich and to take from the poor.

Mr. Walker: Now that the hon. Lady is so much in favour of home improvements and the clearance of derelict land, I hope that she will explain to her constituents why she disapproves of a programme that is far bigger than any programme that a Labour Government ever envisaged or put into practice. In her constituency alone in this financial

year, £1,100,000 will be spent on land reclamation and £683,000 will be spent on improvements to the town centre. I am glad to say, as I know that the hon. Lady will be glad to say, that her local authority has now agreed a housing strategy. I hope that it will carry it out.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for including the Amman and Gwendraeth valleys in his initiative. Why does the initiative not contain some European money? Last week we had the Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys initiative and half the money for that came from the European Community. Surely the regional fund should provide back-up for this inadequate initiative. How much of this money is recycled? I have a strong feeling that it is the same old shop and that the goods in the window have been rearranged. I shall quote one example from my area. The Amman valley hospital modernisation programme was announced six months before the last election. In September, immediately after the election, it was postponed. Now I find out what we knew anyway, that a modernisation programme which was in the pipeline is in this new initiative. These are recycled goods.

Mr. Walker: I discussed with the health authority the projects mentioned in this initiative. I cannot give the go-ahead until the people responsible have agreed that the projects should be part of their strategy. I think that this is a correct list of the proposals that appear to them arid to us to be the ones likely to develop. The hon. Gentleman asked about European assistance. Under the Mid Glamorgan national programme of community interest, an estimated £26 million from the European regional development fund is likely to be distributed to projects in the valleys. The proposed integrated operations programme for industrial south Wales may also attract aid of about £100 million. Of course, the decisions will be taken in Brussels.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: While inwardly digesting the Secretary of State's rather touching belief that £37 million-worth of improvements in the valleys will open the door to greater prosperity, I must tell him that it takes both Courage and Brains to believe that this is the way to give the valleys Allbright future. Will he comment on the figures that he has given for manufacturing development in the valleys, including the great announcement that British Telecom will bring telephone ownership to the valleys? Can he tell us whether manufacturing employment as a whole in the valleys is likely to increase over the next 10 years, or whether it will hold its own or decline?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should look at the potential of £1 billion of investment in regional development, at the £200 million investment by just 11 firms in the valleys, and at the £92 million of capital investment by the public utilities. That will show him that major investment is taking place. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is cynical about the £40 million of investment by the two main brewers in the valleys. That will considerably help the tourist industry, will make far more attractive buildings than the existing ones, and will create a great number of jobs. I welcome that as an addition to the whole substantial programme.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can—[Interruption.]Can my right hon. Friend say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to ask a question.

Mr. Jessel: My wife is half Welsh and her uncle sings in a Welsh choir— [Interruption.]Can my right hon. Friend say whether the new music centres and arts centres that he has proposed for the valleys will be used to promote the work of Welsh male voice choirs, whose marvellous standards and world-renowned quality deserve a wider hearing? Will he consult the Minister for the Arts and the Foreign Secretary to see whether the number of engagements on the continent can be increased?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Ron Davies: When the Secretary of State made his statement, he welcomed the full co-operation that he said he had received from Welsh local authorities, from the Wales TUC and from employers. I hope he realises from the reception for his proposals in the House that there is a great deal of disappointment. That disappointment stems from the fact that in past months the Secretary of State has deliberately been raising expectations in Wales. The statement has failed to meet those expectations and that is why there is bitterness and disappointment.
Why have we not heard about any new investment in manufacturing industry? Why have we not had any firm forecasts of jobs to be created or locations where those jobs will be created? We have heard no mention of one new hospital bed, let alone a new hospital ward or the new hospital that is desperately needed for mid-Glamorgan. No provision has been made for improving the standards of public health. No mention has been made of the need to improve the infrastructure in the valleys, especially the need to improve the quality and standard of our drainage and sewerage systems. There has been no mention of the opportunities that this initiative could have presented to improve the quality of Welsh drinking water.
The Minister has not shown that he will lift the shackles on local authorities when they try to improve our housing stock. We have had no indication at all that new money will be available either to repair the rotting fabric of our schools or to provide the additional teachers who are desperately needed.
The Secretary of State said in his new initiative document:
Unemployment is too high. The Valleys remain scarred by derelict pit heads and slag heaps. Much of the housing is still bad, some of it still failing to provide even the basic amenities of a bathroom or inside toilet. The health of the people also continues to suffer.
It is the misfortune of the people of the valleys that the Secretary of State has identified the problem, but he is a member of a Government who do not have the political will to address themselves to it.

Mr. Walker: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman wrote that piece before hearing the statement or reading the document. The reactions of the House have been interesting. From the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has declared his party's hostility and has said how bad it thinks it is. The Liberal party, Plaid Cymru and Conservative Members have expressed their approval. Perhaps the Labour party has a nasty hang-up because, where it did so little for the valleys, the Tory Government are doing so much. All the items that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—industrial and manufacturing investment and investment in water supplies, clearing derelict land and the environment—will be at record levels as a result of the programme, seemingly to the distress of the Labour party.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory replies from the Secretary of State for Wales on the entire issue, I intend raising the matter in the Adjournment tonight.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the proper time to raise that matter.

Agriculture (Set-Aside)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about set-aside of agricultural land.
A new European Community scheme to reduce surplus agricultural production by set-aside of agricultural land was agreed in principle at the European Council in February, together with the stabilisers package. It is compulsory for member states to introduce the scheme for the 1988–89 crop production year, but participation is voluntary for farmers. Under the scheme, farmers prepared to take 20 per cent. or more of their arable land out of production for five years will receive compensation payments, part of which will be funded by FEOGA.
In view of the very tight timetable that we face, I am announcing the broad outlines of the United Kingdom scheme now, so that farmers can start taking it into account in drawing up their plans for the next cropping year. The details of the scheme must, however, under the Community legislation be scrutinised by the European Commission, which may ask for some changes, and I will then put before both Houses a statutory instrument for its implementation.
The main components of the scheme will be, first, that premiums will be available to farmers prepared to reduce their area of supported arable crops by 20 per cent. or more. The farmer must take on an obligation for five years, but can opt out after three. Farmers setting aside at least 30 per cent. of their arable land will be exempted from co-responsibility levy on a maximum of 20 tonnes of grain sold.
Secondly, land set aside will have to be maintained as fallow with a green cover crop, put to woodland or used for non-agricultural purposes. The Community rules provide that land put to fallow must be kept in good agricultural condition, whether the fallow is permanent or rotated around the farm. In regard to non-agricultural use, land developed for residential, industrial, retail or similar purposes will not be eligible, but the scheme will not include other limitations on non-agricultural use—although, of course, planning controls will continue to apply.
Thirdly, the rates of payment will vary according to the different uses and according to whether the land is in the lowlands or in a less favoured area. For land that is managed as permanent fallow with a green cover crop, the rate will be £200 per hectare per year except in the LFAs, where the rate will be £180 to take account of their lower average yields. There will be a reduction of £20 in either case if the fallow area is rotated round the farm. Those payments take account of the cost of maintaining a green cover and the benefit of rotation.
Farmers adopting the woodland option may plant trees under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme, in which case they will receive a set-aside payment of £200 per hectare per year or £180 in the LFAs. Alternatively, they may enter the farm woodland scheme, which is due to come into effect later this year under the Farm Land and Rural Development Act that has just received the Royal Assent. For non-agricultural use, bearing in mind that the land could be expected to yield some form of income to offset the costs of maintenance, the set-aside payment will be reduced by £50 per hectare.
Fourthly, there is an option under the Community rules to permit land set aside from arable crops to be grazed by livestock, subject to limits on numbers. I have decided not to take up that option in the United Kingdom because of the difficulties of ensuring proper controls and the adverse effects that such an option could have on existing livestock producers, especially in the upland areas. In reaching that decision, I took into account the many representations I received—including, in particular, the views expressed in the House.
Fifthly, set-aside payments in this and future years will be based on farmers' arable crop pattern in 1987–88. Farmers entering the scheme will be required to provide evidence of that pattern. That will create no difficulty for those entering this year, but many farmers may not wish to enter the set-aside scheme at once, and I want to safeguard their ability to enter the scheme in later years, when the evidence of the crop pattern in 1987–88 may otherwise have disappeared.
I am therefore providing for farmers who do not wish to enter set-aside this year, but wish to keep their options open, to register their 1987–88 crop pattern with the agriculture Departments this summer. Some farmers have put forward suggestions for additional payments for particularly environmentally friendly practices on the farm. We have not been able to establish whether a scheme on those lines is viable, but we will be undertaking a careful study of it. I am placing in the Library a document giving fuller details of the scheme.
As I have emphasised in the House previously, the Government regard set-aside as an important new instrument of CAP reform, complementary to action on price. Its aims are to assist in getting more arable land out of production, to provide an alternative source of income for farmers most affected by reductions in CAP support and to give reasonable payments to farmers in recognition of the environmental services they are providing to the community at large in keeping such land in attractive condition and capable, if necessary, of returning to agricultural use. I hope that farmers will now look positively at the possibilities it offers them, both in the coming and future cropping years.

Dr. David Clark: I thank the Minister for coming to the House this afternoon to make this statement. However, it does not begin to show the awful cost of the Prime Minister's cave-in in Brussels last February when those agreements were initially laid. It is obvious to all that the common agricultural policy is in a state of crisis and in need of drastic reform. The position has deteriorated so far that the total public resources spent on agriculture through Community national budgets have now reached a level practically equivalent to the net income of that sector. Those were the sentiments of the European Commission this year, which described the industry as being almost totally subsidised.
The set-aside proposals are no more than damage limitation measures. They seek merely to tackle the effect of surpluses, not their causes. In the way that they have been presented this afternoon, they are extremely disappointing.
The proposals are so limited that the Minister has not even taken the opportunity to link environmental and low-input farming into the system. He could have taken the opportunity to change the gear of agriculture to


something less intensive. It is a great pity that he did not do that at the outset, although I am pleased that he appears to have an open mind on the matter.
In view of the new planning circular on opencast coal mining last week, will the Minister clarify whether land set aside will be eligible for such non-agricultural uses?
The Minister emphasised that the proposals are to be voluntary. Can he explain why one of his officials, Tony Lester-Card—a senior agricultural adviser—last week warned that the voluntary approach would not work and that the scheme would probably be made compulsory? Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether that senior civil servant was speaking for the Government, or does the Minister disagree with his remarks? After all, the report of Mr. Lester-Card's comments in Farmers Weekly last week had the credibility of containing most of the information that the Minister has given the House this afternoon.
Has the Minister any figures for the total amount that he anticipates being spent on the scheme this year? How many hectares of arable land does he envisage being taken out of production? Has he estimated the amount of slippage? Has he estimated the impact of his proposals on employment in agriculture? How many agricultural workers does he envisage losing their jobs because of the set-aside scheme? What plans, if any, does he have financially to compensate those who lose their jobs?
How does the Minister intend to ensure that his proposals are monitored effectively? Does he appreciate that it is essential that no fraudulent claims are made, because the general public simply will not stand for that? They have enough difficulty understanding why, in their view, farmers are paid for, in effect, doing nothing.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has raised a large number of points, but the one with which he began is not appropriate for discussion this afternoon—that is, the wider question of tackling the causes of surpluses. We have often debated that issue and I reject the idea that there was any cave-in at the February summit. Indeed, we achieved significant reforms, a great many of which were due to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
For a variety of reasons, set-aside has an important part to play complementary to those reforms. First, if we are to tackle surpluses, more land must come out of agricultural production, and we want to assist that process. Secondly, many farmers will face quite severe difficulties because of the structural changes in the industry, yet they have to manage the land. We want to give them an alternative option through the set-aside scheme, where that is relevant.
I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the scheme does not tackle a number of issues such as the environment. Although its primary purpose is to tackle the problems of surplus production, it has a substantial number of important environmental benefits. The Community insists that the land is left in agronomic condition, and we shall encourage good management in the interests of wildlife and the environment generally. There are six or seven ways in which that will be furthered under the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman knows that low-input farming is not appropriate to the scheme; nor is organic or any other form of more extensive farming. A decision was taken earlier this year to concentrate first and foremost on the

set-aside scheme to get land out of production, and then to find other ways to deal with more extensive farming in arable crops and beef. However, because of its rotational and permanent fallow proposals, the set-aside scheme will have an indirect impact that should prove helpful to low-input and even organic farming.
There are a whole variety of ways in which non-agricultural use can be generated, and I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of opencast mining.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the advice that the Government had taken, and complained about the proposed level of rates. That is one of the most difficult areas to decide in a pioneering, experimental scheme, and I gave a considerable amount of thought and study to that aspect. We need to strike a balance between reasonable compensation for loss of income and the costs of farmers in managing the land, and the over-compensation that could occur for some producers. The hon. Gentleman would be immediately critical if there was over-compensation from public money.
The proposed rate is at the very top of the scale set out in the consultation document, and it was determined after expert advice from ADAS and our economists. The gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman referred certainly was not speaking for the Government. No member state, and certainly not the Commission, is in favour of a compulsory set-aside scheme. There would be significant difficulties with compulsion, and it would not be a political proposition.
The hon. Gentleman referred to money spent this year, but I am sure that he realises that the money is spent at the end of the year in question, so I imagine that he was in fact referring to 1989–90. We have set aside—if that is the right description—what I believe to be sufficient funds, some £16 million, to deal with 1989–90. Because of the late start following delays in the European Council decisions and the discussions on drawing up the Commission's regulations, we might not meet all that this year. However, we have made adequate provision.
I have not taken a view on the number of hectares, because that will depend on the response. However, the number taken out of production actually has nothing to do with slippage—another point to which the hon. Gentleman referred—because we would not get the equivalent amount of production that we would get from the amount of land taken out. Inevitably, there will be some slippage in any set-aside scheme, and we have taken account of that in the proposed rate of payment.
It is not possible at this stage to estimate the scheme's effects on agricultural employment, but I suspect that it will be slight and may even be favourable. Given the payments to farmers for continuing to manage the land, I do not believe that there will be much reduction in employment. Indeed, by encouraging non-agricultural use, there may be quite an increase.
We shall, of course, have effective monitoring. As with all schemes, I am determined to crack down hard on any fraudulent claims. I beg the hon. Gentleman to recognise that it is not, as he concluded, a scheme to pay farmers for doing nothing—far from it. We shall be paying them to manage the land. There is a cost to farmers in managing land and keeping it in good condition and environmentally attractive. We will not be paying farmers for doing nothing; we will be paying them in recognition of the effect that dealing with surpluses will have on some farm


incomes. We are also recognising that they have a role to play in keeping our countryside attractive, something that they do magnificently well. The set-aside scheme will help them to do that.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the great importance of the statement, but I remind the House that there is another statement to follow and then a heavy day's work. I ask hon. Members to be brief.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is welcome because of the voluntary nature of the scheme, and especially because of his decision to exclude grazed fallow, something that will be met with great relief in the grassland areas? Is he further aware that the scheme will be especially welcome to those farmers currently in difficulty because they grow only low yields of cereals? Will not the scheme also be attractive to taxpayers, whom my right hon. Friend did not mention, as they will be supporting farmers' incomes at a much lower cost than if they had been allowed to continue to create larger and larger surpluses?
Will my right hon. Friend review the acreage payments in the light of those to be paid by other member states, so that our farmers are treated with similar generosity to that shown to those in other countries?

Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to his early and important work in developing this scheme. I listened especially to the views of people like himself when I made my decision on grazed fallow; I am glad that he supports my decision.
I entirely agree that we should be helpful to farmers with low yields of cereals. That is one of the great merits of the scheme, and the rate of payment has been particularly directed at that. I am sorry that I omitted to refer to the taxpayer in my opening remarks, but my right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that this is a very cost-effective scheme in that respect.
Finally, it would not be right to have a review of rates as a result of action taken by other member states this year. One or two member states may make larger payments in some circumstances. It is likely that the West German Government will do so because they have a different form of land classification, which enables them to gear the scheme to the different levels of profitability of different cereal farmers, whereas we cannot do that.
I do not rule out reviews of various aspects in due course. After all, I favour the principle of monitoring and evaluation of all grant schemes wherever appropriate. That would apply equally to rates, although they may have to be revised downwards as well as upwards to take account of price reductions under the stabiliser arrangements, but any reductions would certainly not apply to those farmers already in the scheme.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Minister intend this United Kingdom scheme, as he calls it, to apply automatically and simultaneously to Northern Ireland, or will the colonial regime in the Northern Ireland Office drag its feet for the usual 18 months?

Mr. MacGregor: That would have to be a matter for the statutory instrument, but I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers will consider these measures inadequate, and that the take-up will be very small? What will be done with the green crop cover, if grazing is not allowed? Is the exclusion of grazing not a further disadvantage to British farmers in comparison with European farmers? How does the £200 maximum compare with that which will be received by the French and German farmers?

Mr. MacGregor: We had to direct the rates of payment to certain groups of farmers. The £200 figure is directed at some of the more marginal cereal producers. That will nevertheless benefit all cereal producers if it helps to cut cereal production, but the problem in setting what my hon. Friend would perhaps regard as a generous rate is that it could heavily over-compensate other producers. That would not be the best use of taxpayers' money and the public would not regard it as the right decision.
Experience of set-aside schemes in other countries has shown that, in the early period, take-up is slow because of farmers' natural caution. Through nobody's fault, we are coming forward with a scheme rather later in the year than usual, so some farmers may find that they simply cannot take decisions for the coming year. I do not expect a rapid take-up, but I hope that it will be considered favourably by those to whom the rates of payment will be attractive. Green crop cover is a Community condition of the scheme, but we have taken that fact into account when setting the rate of payment.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Despite the fact that there is no Scottish Office Minister on the Front Bench at present, may we take it that this statement also applies to Scotland? Although I understand why the Minister has decided not to permit grazing of arable land set aside under this scheme, what is his understanding of the likely application of the scheme in other Community countries? Does he acknowledge that the exercise of that option in other Community countries could further discriminate against the British meat industry in all its forms?

Mr. MacGregor: One has to make judgments about those matters and we will find that, where there is an option, member states come to different conclusions about grazed fallow and, where there are no Community conditions, will reach their own conclusions too. That is what I have done. I have listened to our farmers and all those who represent them and, in the light of those representations, have reached my decision about grazed fallow.
I closely consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on this subject and I know very well what the National Farmers Union of Scotland has been saying. I have seen a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend from the president of the Scottish NFU.
In response to that representation, I wish to emphasise that I am not closing the door permanently on that option. I would be willing to monitor the position with the industry, in which there are some divided views, to see whether the grazed fallow option should be introduced in some form at a later date, but certainly not this year. I have come to a clear decision for this year, but obviously, if conditions and people's views change, I am prepared to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that fallow ground may not be used for grazing, will he confirm that the green crop grown on that land will not be allowed to be used for conservation for livestock feeding purposes, as that would drive a coach and horses through the policy? Although I welcome his policy for the United Kingdom, will it not create problems for the remainder of Europe if other European countries allow the grazing of that land by livestock or the conservation of crops for livestock purposes? Will that not shuffle off cereal problems into livestock areas and create anomalies for British livestock producers by putting them in an unfair position in comparison with livestock producers in Europe?

Mr. MacGregor: I confirm that the position in respect of the green crop cover is as my right hon. Friend said. There will be divided views about grazed fallow in other member states. That was clear from our discussions in the Agriculture Council, and other Ministers shared my worry and concern about the possible impact of unfair competition on their livestock producers. I am sure that there will be an active debate in the farming communities of other member states.
It is important that there should be strict conditions where grazed fallow is taken up as an option in respect of the number of livestock allowed, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend. I insisted on that in my discussions about that option in the Agriculture Council, and there are now strict conditions regarding the number of livestock. One of the problems is how to control that. That was one of the reasons why I reached my decision. We shall watch carefully what happens in other member states.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the Government's scheme. They have learnt a great deal from their mistakes in 1983, when they introduced compulsory legislation for dairy farmers. I am sure that the cereal growers of this country are glad that they have had a voluntary scheme, but I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions.
Does the Minister honestly believe that he can achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in three or four years by voluntary methods? I should like further clarification about the conditions regarding farmers opting out after three years, when the scheme is obligatory for five years. In view of paragraph 7 of the statement, I am surprised that the less favoured areas are included in the scheme. To what extent are cereals grown in the less favoured areas of this country? The figure is bound to be very small. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider withdrawing the less favoured areas from the scheme.
Finally, hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially livestock and sheep farmers, are anxious that the Minister should give an assurance to United Kingdom sheep farmers that he will consider the scheme annually and consult the farmers' unions in each country of the United Kingdom to ensure that he produces a scheme that will benefit the farmers concerned.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I am glad that he asked his first question, because it enables me to clear up a misunderstanding in his mind, which is widely held elsewhere. The 20 per cent. limit is not designed to reduce cereal or arable production generally by 20 per cent. over a period. It offers farmers the opportunity to reduce their

production if they are prepared to take 20 per cent. of their land out. It follows clearly from that that it is a voluntary scheme and that there will be some slippage in the amount of land that they take out. It also follows that the reduction of cereal production will be well short of the 20 per cent. Indeed, it was always designed to be so.
As for farmers opting out after three years, that is a Community permission. Provided that the farmer has abided by all the conditions in the three years, he will not be required to repay his premium for those three years, he would then opt out, and no longer remain in the scheme.
The answer to the question about less favoured areas is that cereals are grown there and I do not wish to deny farmers in LFAs the opportunity to participate in the scheme. I suspect that some of the more marginal growers who will be most attracted to the scheme and who are most under pressure will be in the LFAs. It would be quite wrong of us not to give them the option. The lower rate of payment—lower by 10 per cent —reflects the fact that I have been advised by all my expert ADAS advisers that, broadly speaking, yields in LFAs are 13 to 14 per cent. lower than elsewhere.
Finally, having in mind the position of sheep farmers in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's and other upland areas, I took the decision not to take up the grazed fallow option in the United Kingdom. Sheep farmers would be most concerned about the prospects of increased competition in lowland areas from people who took up a grazed fallow option.

Mr. Paul Marland: I begin by welcoming the fact that my right hon. Friend has come to the House so early to make this statement, because it gives arable farmers the opportunity to plan for the future. I welcome also his refusal to allow the green cover, as he has described it, to be grazed. I should like to ask two questions about that. The first relates to the timing of the payments for set-aside, because cash flow is as important to farmers as it is to those involved in other businesses. If my right hon. Friend could state when the payments will be made, that would be helpful.
Secondly, when my right hon. Friend refers to 20 per cent. of a farmer's ground, what is the position if the farmer occupies more than one holding? Is it 20 per cent. of the acreage, spread over all the holdings, or can it be 20 per cent. of the entire acreage farmed, all on one holding?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those questions. I understand his point about cash flow, but I advise him that the payments will be made at the end of the year as that is a condition of the scheme. On his second point, I shall have to consider the kind of cases that he has in mind but, broadly speaking, it would normally be 20 per cent. of the actual holding.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister recognise and accept that those who farm the difficult areas of this country, where grazing is the only option, will welcome the implications of the early part of his statement, but have some doubts about his reservations and his subsequent commitments to reconsider the matter? Obviously, those people have only one choice. The Minister also suggested that there might be other means of reducing crop output. Is his Department prepared to continue to consider those methods, because some may be far more environmentally acceptable?.

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's main point about grazed fallow, I have made a clear decision today that we will not go for the grazed fallow option. However, I was pressed, especially by the Scottish NFU, not to close my mind permanently to that if the general view or conditions should change. This afternoon one or two hon. Members have stated their concern that we should look at what happens in the European Community. However, I am persuaded of the importance of the understandable feelings and worries, with which I agree, of farmers in upland areas, and especially livestock farmers. That was what played the biggest part in directing my mind to the conclusion that I reached. I would certainly need to be strongly convinced that there were strong arguments for changing that decision, and that would have to be the view of those in the upland areas also.
The hon. Gentleman's final point requested the type of scheme that might come in under the extensification schemes which we are committed to introducing. We are, for example, committed to introducing one for arable production from —I speak from memory—1990.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is this scheme as favourable to farmers as the environmentally sensitive areas scheme? If it is not, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the number of environmentally sensitive areas?

Mr. MacGregor: It is impossible to say, because each farmer must take his own decision on that in relation to his own circumstances. To some extent, the schemes have different purposes and, therefore, the rates of payment are different. In any case, ESAs are not available to all farmers. What I am doing is in the whole context of trying to get the right balance between agricultural production and the environment, in the new changed circumstances of bearing down on surpluses. I am trying to offer a range of alternatives to farmers. They can choose for themselves which they think are most appropriate to them.
We have already embarked on a large programme of ESAs in a short time. It is necessary that we review and monitor them to see exactly how they are progressing, so that we can learn lessons from their progress. ESAs are moving favourably at the moment, but we need a little more time to review their progress before we reach conclusions about any others.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Turning again to the issue of grazed fallow, how deep were the divisions in the Community on that option? Was it a minority view, which the Minister reflected, or a majority view? When does he expect other Ministers to reach a decision on that important matter?
The Minister states that the Government had allocated £16 million for the set-aside scheme for next year. Will any of that money come from FEOGA, or is it in addition to the Government's own funding?

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Lady's first point, one member state in particular pressed the grazed fallow option—although I suspect that there were divisions of view in the farming community in that member state also. It is difficult to say how many member states will take it up. They may change their minds when the problems that I foresee with grazed fallow start to emerge. We need a little time to see how that develops.
On the payments and the FEOGA contribution, the £16 million is what we set aside in the public expenditure White Paper. There are varying rates of FEOGA payments depending on the level at which national member states set their own payments. In the case of the payments that I have announced today, we expect a 42 per cent. FEOGA contribution.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. Returning to the grazing of fallow land, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is divided opinion in the National Farmers Union of Scotland and among Scottish farmers, because if grazing is accepted on the continent there will be a major increase in livestock there, of beef and mutton, which will discriminate against this country? Will he therefore state today that he will monitor developments, take a flexible attitude, and keep in close touch with his right hon. Friend?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There should not be a major increase in livestock production if other member states take it up, because there are now strict rules about what can be undertaken on grazed fallow, and on the limitation of livestock. As I said earlier, that was one point that I insisted on being included in the Community's conditions. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall monitor all aspects of the scheme, including what is happening in other member states, and I shall, of course, keep in Close touch with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: I add my welcome to the exclusion of grazed fallow in the Minister's statement and wish to convey to him the relief and the appreciation of the crofters and the upland sheep farmers of the Highlands and Islands. I take on board what I believe the Minister said earlier, and ask him for an assurance that grazed fallow will not be included as long as he believes that it will have an adverse effect on upland sheep farmers. Will he clarify the question about green fallow and make it absolutely clear that no harvest crops —for example, mustard—will be allowed on green fallow?

Mr. MacGregor: There are strict conditions about the way in which the green crop is used. It must not be used for agricultural purposes. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I hope that I have already made it clear that I took the decision that I did on grazed fallow bearing in mind the representations from livestock hill farmers generally, and sheep farmers especially.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that farmers in my constituency will be pleased with his original statement, but slightly less pleased with his subsequent qualification on grazed fallow—that he will not close his mind permanently to it? Will he firmly bear in mind the fact that, as far as arable farmers are concerned, the grazed fallow will merely be jam on top of the bread, but to the sheep farmers in my part of the world it means survival?

Mr. MacGregor: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. I have heard her say it before, and I listened to her very carefully then, too. I am glad that she is pleased with the conclusion that I have reached. All I have said is that I will not permanently close my mind to an option that is available under the Community scheme if there is a change of view in the United Kingdom. But I


have a very clear view, I think, of what most hill livestock farmers and their representatives, particularly in the House, feel at present about that option.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that there must be something obscene about taking good agricultural land out of production while millions of people are starving in this world. There is also something ridiculous about paying farmers—not for doing nothing, it has been said, but for watching the grass grow, as appears to be the system.
Would it not have been better to look at the possibility of imposing a nitrogen fertiliser tax? A tax of 15 per cent. would have had the same effect of reducing the surpluses as the set-aside that the Minister is proposing. It would also have had great environmental benefit as it would not have polluted the water. The Government, or perhaps others in a privatised world, will have to pay to have the nitrogen taken out of the water, which will reduce the profit on the land.
My second question concerns grazing on green fallow and the suburban problem of horses. It may be a light problem in agricultural terms, but would it not be sensible to allow horses to graze on green fallow since we have not taken to the practice of eating horses in this country?

Mr. MacGregor: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not participated in some of our agricultural debates——

Mr. Martlew: I have.

Mr. MacGregor: Well, I cannot recall his contribution. If he participated, he clearly did not listen to the debates, because we have dealt with the whole question of food aid, the position in the developing countries and the relative situation on surpluses in the Community many times, and I do not intend to come back to that today.
On the question of nitrogen, I referred earlier to the fact that there were a number of environmentally important and attractive elements in the scheme. One of them is that it will not be possible to put fertilisers on the fallow land that has been set aside. That is really there to help to deal with the water leaching.
On the question of horses, it would be perfectly possible for one of the non-agricultural uses of land set aside to be development of equestrian facilities for the community at large.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: How can my right hon. Friend ensure that those countries that take up the fallow option—I enthusiastically support his decision with regard to the United Kingdom—do not use it to establish a higher livestock base for future stabilisers or quota schemes, which would be very disadvantageous to the United Kingdom?

Mr. MacGregor: The control of livestock numbers will be a very important condition in any member state that takes up the grazed fallow option. Clearly, that is something that I shall be very alert in watching and monitoring as the scheme goes along. I am sure that in other member states, too, livestock producers will be alert to the risks that they face if a grazed fallow option is available in their country.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) about low-input farming was brushed aside by the Minister. Does he not realise that this is a golden opportunity to move towards low-input, organic, sustainable agriculture, which would be for everyone's benefit, not least the consumer's? Will he show some appreciation of the urgency of this matter, since changing from the present over-exploitation to a sustainable agricultural method will be a slow process?

Mr. MacGregor: It was not brushed aside. The point simply is that low-input and organic farming in the sense that the hon. Lady puts it forward is not appropriate to this scheme, except at the periphery. This scheme is designed entirely to deal with getting surplus land out of production. Because of the importance of tackling the surpluses and getting land out of production, this was given priority in the European Council and the CAP reforms that were agreed then. But it was also agreed at that time that we should then look at the possibility of more extensive arable farming. We are committed to coming forward with proposals on that under the timetable set by the European Council.

Sir John Farr: Like so many of my hon. Friends, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done and ask him particularly to monitor the progress of the scheme. I was sorry to hear that he did not appear too committed to low-intensity or low-input farming. I remind him that continental countries, as I understand it, have adopted this form of low-input, low-output, farming. Is there not a chance that some of our own farmers might be disadvantaged as a result?

Mr. MacGregor: I can reassure my hon. Friend about monitoring. I come back to what I said a moment ago about low-input farming. We have a great deal on our plate at present in carrying through the structural changes in agriculture and introducing quite a wide range of schemes—to the extent that some people now tell me that they are beginning to be baffled by the number of alternatives available to them. That is why I am trying to keep this scheme as simple as I possibly can within the Community rules. But we shall be turning to the whole matter of low-input farming, which raises some very difficult issues that will need to be carefully thought through when we come to consider the possibilities under extensification.

Mr. Elliot Morley: While I welcome the set-aside policy in dealing with the problems of CAP, it has some serious flaws. The Minister has already mentioned the problem of the effect of grazing. Does he not agree that, if we are putting large sums of public money into such a scheme, there ought to be some direction of the way that the land is used—particularly in managing it for conservation purposes—in terms of a return to wetland, hedgerows, and so on, and encouraging such things as woodland schemes?
Is there not a problem in that it is the marginal producers who are more likely to go for this scheme, and that the large-scale producers, who are the villains of the piece in terms of the environmental consequences of large-scale cereal farming for intervention price gain, will not be attracted by the scheme? Therefore, it is flawed in that sense.

Mr. MacGregor: In the conditions, it will be laid down that shelter belts, hedges and so on have to be maintained. There will be guidelines on environmental practices. So I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the sort of things he calls for will be part and parcel of the scheme.

Mr. Robert Hicks: On my right hon. Friend's welcome statement about not allowing the grazing of fallow, is he aware that the west country livestock sector, and hill farmers in particular, will be disappointed by his subsequent remarks about reconsideration? My right hon. Friend mentioned that an individual applicant will have to agree to setting aside 20 per cent. of his grain. Does a minimum acreage have to be involved?

Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, yes—one hectare in a block. On my hon. Friend's first point, I obviously need to reiterate that I have made a firm decision today on the grazed fallow option. What I have said in response to the request received by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland from the Scottish NFU is that I will not permanently close my mind to a possible change. I think that everyone will agree that, in schemes of this sort, one cannot say that one will stick to a position permanently. I am well aware—I am becoming more aware as these questions continue—of the views in this House, and I have listened to them very carefully.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Minister will be aware that there will be a welcome for his decision not to take up the grazed fallow option this year, but I have noted his comment that he will keep his options open for future years. One pressure that he might come under in future years could be caused by his having set the compensation limits too low. There will be pressure on him from the other sectors of the agricultural community, because enough cereal land has not been taken out of production, for the grazed fallow option to be taken up. Can he assure us that he will not go down that road and that, even if he were thinking of going down that road, he would consider raising compensation rather than taking up that option?

Mr. MacGregor: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I suspect that that will be the view which he will press in succeeding debates on the set-aside scheme. I must make it clear again that I do not rule out reviews of various aspects of the scheme, including rates. I made it clear earlier what the position would be on that. But I would need a great deal of convincing to change my mind about the grazed fallow option.

Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed as reasonable. Does he agree that farmers in Britain will accept it as long as it is seen to be fair across Europe? When considering how he monitors not only what we are doing but what our continental competitors are doing, will he ensure that we do not fall into the same trap as with dairy quotas, when the European Court of Auditors showed that six countries were cheating? Will my right hon. Friend assure my Shropshire farmers that other farmers will not cheat, as they did with dairy quotas?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that we are assiduous in following up areas where we think there is unfair competition or unfair use of Community measures. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do that.

I find that the Commission is now alert to this. I am asked to make comparisons with other countries; I shall be doing that, but it is difficult to draw conclusions. One should not draw a simple conclusion just by comparing the rates of aid in different countries. Different conditions apply to the scheme. The position may be different in different countries. For example, in West Germany they can take advantage of different rates at different levels of profitability on cereals because of their land classification system, which I do not think any other member state has. When making comparisons, one has to examine carefully all the items involved.

Ms. Joan Walley: The Minister glossed over an earlier question about opencasting. I should like an assurance that we will not have even more opencasting as a result of the scheme. What provision will there be for access to the countryside? Has he had discussions with the Ramblers Association about this? Will the monitoring that he talked about take account of the impact that this will have on footpaths, because we want to keep those that exist?

Mr. MacGregor: Opencasting comes into the context of non-agricultural use. I do not think that it is possible at the moment to draw a firm line on all types of non-agricultural use. I specified in my opening statement areas of non-agricultural use which we would definitely exclude—for, I hope, acceptable reasons.
As to access to the countryside, it is important in the context of the set-aside scheme to realise that if we are to achieve proper take-up by farmers, we must keep the scheme as simple as possible within the Community rules, but there are certain things that I have had to do within Community rules. We must not encumber farmers with too many conditions which would put them off
Therefore, I do not think that it would be right to insist, for non-agricultural purposes, on farmers being asked as part of the scheme to make their land openly available to ramblers or whatever. I beg the House to realise that we do not want to put unnecessary burdens, or what might seem to be restrictions, on farmers if we are asking them voluntarily to enter into the scheme.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that all the hon. Members who are standing have a strong interest in the matter, but I have to have regard to the subsequent business. I will allow questions on the statement to go on for another seven minutes. After that, we must move on. I hope that everyone can be called in that time.

Mr. James Paice: May I echo the welcome that my hon. Friend's have given to my right hon. Friend's statement? My right hon. Friend will realise that the rates of payment announced will ensure that farmers with less productive land will be interested in this scheme. It will be of less interest to farmers in my constituency on grade 1 and 2 land. I should like my right hon. Friend to answer two specific points. First, will conservation strips and headlands be eligible? The second point relates to the interaction between the proposal and the farm woodlands scheme; which rates of payment can be jointly claimed?

Mr. MacGregor: I recognise that the scheme is not likely to be attractive to most farmers on the most


profitable and productive cereal land, although some, depending on their position, may want to enter into it. It is important for the former to recognise that if a scheme makes a contribution to getting cereal production down it is helpful to them too. As to headlands and marginal strips, we have fixed a limit below which farmers cannot go, but strips will be eligible under the scheme subject always to the overriding consideration that 20 per cent. of arable land must be taken out of production. I will set out clearly in the document the inter-relationship with the farm woodland scheme.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are some of the six or seven ways of helping wildlife to which the Minister referred?

Mr. MacGregor: The marginal strips will clearly be one way of helping conservation. The fact that green cover crops will be on farms not used for intensive cereal production will be another. The guidelines that we are giving on good environmental practice will, I hope, be a third. The preservation and proper management of shelter belts, hedges and so on will be a fourth.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is it not a great concern that other EC countries will permit livestock grazing on set-aside land? Will the cost of this not more than offset the savings which the Commission hopes to make through a reduction in cereal price? Will not those countries be able to pass the cost of the ensuing surpluses in the livestock sector to the general European taxpayer through the CAP in ways we have seen in the past?

Mr. MacGregor: I am alive to this. Two points in the scheme will bear heavily on it. One is the control on livestock numbers where grazed fallow is taken up. The second is that grazed fallow payments will, under the Community scheme, have to be half the level of other payments for land set aside.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I give a broad welcome to the proposal. What consideration has the Minister given to ensuring a reasonably even take-up of set-aside across the country? Is he aware that the importance of agriculture does not depend just on income, important though that is, but on agricultural output, on which the jobs of farm workers and ancillary industries depend? What assurance can the Minister give to the north-east of Scotland, which suffered virtually a harvest failure last year, that agricultural output will not be decimated although there may be some short-term relief?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously one cannot give an assurance of an even spread throughout the country of a voluntary scheme that is designed to help particularly the marginal cereal growers. The rates of payment are directed at that. Clearly each farmer will have to make up his own mind whether he wants to enter the scheme; the position of his farm workers will be one consideration in making the decision.

Mr. David Harris: Does my right hon. Friend have targets for the amount of land which he would like to see taken out of production by the scheme and for the cuts in production? Is there not a danger that those who benefit from the scheme will be farmers who increase production like crazy on land left in cereal production?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not have targets, because it is a new scheme and we have to see how it goes. On the point about more intensive farming on the rest of the land, it will not be possible for a farmer to increase the amount of land for arable production during the period of the scheme. I have considered this carefully, particularly in relation to experience in the United States of America, which I visited recently. The conditions are different in the two countries. Inevitably there will be some slippage in the scheme, but I do not think that we will see sharply more intensive production on the rest of the land—for the very good reason that the vast majority of our farmers are extremely good farmers already and they are getting maximum production from intensive farming.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: What will the consumer and the general public think of the scheme? If the product of coal miners, steel workers or creamery workers is surplus to requirements, they are thrown on the scrap heap, but when there is a crisis in farming, all sorts of escape mechanisms are provided. Whatever assurances the Minister may give, will not the general public have a vision of farmers being paid for doing nothing because there will be no economic product to sell in the market? Is it not the case that the only real answer to CAP surpluses is guaranteed prices? If one cuts prices, that will protect small farmers.

Mr. MacGregor: There is some illogicality in the hon. Gentleman's argument, when he complains about a scheme that will protect small farmers but says also that I must protect small farmers
It is important that the general public should understand and take the view that it would not be attractive if large tracts of our countryside went to dereliction, scrub and waste—as we saw happen in earlier generations. It is important for the general public to realise that farmers are the best conservationists we have and that they look after our land extremely well; opinion polls show that such is the view the public hold. There is a cost in managing such land, and part of the set-aside payment is designed to help farmers meet that cost, in the interests of us all.

Mr. Roger Knapman: As I represent the Stroud constituency, in which almost exactly half the farmers are in the Severn vale, which is almost entirely grassland, and the other half are in the Cotswolds, which are almost entirely arable, I have good reason to be very grateful for my right hon. Friend's balanced statement. Does he feel that the combination of his set-aside proposals with the likelihood of lower corn yields in the United States resulting from the current drought will mean that our arable farmers may look forward to the future with greater confidence than for some time past?

Mr. MacGregor: Although I know that droughts happen, they must be considered as one-off events, and one would be unwise to rely on them as a source of long-term confidence for our farmers. We are pursuing a long-term combination of reforming the CAP so that it does not collapse under its own weight with measures designed to assist farmers in dealing with structural readjustment, while continuing to look after the land in an environmentally attractive way. As those measures take effect, I hope that farmers will increasingly see that that


combination offers the stability they want. In the long run, such an approach is more likely than a one-year drought to give farmers confidence.

Mr. John Greenway: Sheep farmers in north Yorkshire will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement not to take up the grazed fallow option. However, the House will recognise his dilemma. I urge him to use his not inconsiderable powers of persuasion to convince our EC partners themselves not to take up the grazed fallow option—or if they do, to restrict it to such an extent that there will be no damage to or impact on our exports of sheepmeat.

Mr. MacGregor: There are considerable restrictions on livestock numbers in the grazed fallow option, by which our EC partners will have to abide. Moreover, the rates of payment are halved, and so are a good deal lower than those made to all farmers not taking up the grazed fallow option. That too will make it less attractive. It is certainly something we shall continue to monitor.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend accept that farmers will be concerned that the measures described in his welcome statement are properly policed, not only in Britain, but also among our EC partners? Can he tell the House what proposals he has for controlling the new set-aside policy?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that it should be policed, and we shall be policing, monitoring and evaluating the situation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the multitude of costly disappointments on the CAP, all of which were widely welcomed by the House, will the Minister assure the taxpayer who will be financing this measure that the poor land which will be taken out of production will not be balanced by even higher yields from the land that remains? On reflection, does the Minister think it wise that the stabiliser should be fixed at a level higher than current excessive production?

Mr. MacGregor: We achieved considerable success in getting the stabiliser fixed at its present level. That was the result of pressure from the United Kingdom in particular. As to my hon. Friend's other point, I have considered the matter very carefully, and I believe that it certainly is a cost-effective proposition for the taxpayer.

Patrick McVeigh

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the extradition proceedings relating to Patrick McVeigh.
Warrants were issued at Bow street magistrates court on 13 May 1988 for the arrest of Patrick McVeigh on charges of conspiracy to cause an explosion and of possession of explosive substances.
I duly sent to the Irish Attorney-General on 16 May, following the procedures recently agreed between us for the purposes of the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, a note confirming that the Crown prosecution service had the clear intention to bring a prosecution, and that it had satisfied itself that there was sufficient admissible evidence to found a prosecution. I also sent to him a statement of facts and a statement of the relevant law.
The Irish Attorney-General, in accordance with the new Irish legislation, satisfied himself on the basis of that material that there was an intention to prosecute, based on a sufficiency of admissible evidence. The warrants, with the authority of the Irish Attorney-General, were accordingly endorsed by a Garda commissioner, and Patrick McVeigh was arrested on foot of those warrants on 18 May, upon the occasion of his release from Portlaoise prison, where he had been serving a sentence of imprisonment.
Applications for the return of fugitive offenders to the United Kingdom are made by the Irish State Solicitor, on behalf of the Irish state. Following McVeigh's arrest, discussions accordingly took place between the Crown prosecution service and the Irish State Solicitor. At the end of a conference with counsel for the Irish state in Dublin on 7 June, the central question remained whether the Irish state intended to call English witnesses to establish that the prisoner before the court was the person whose arrest was sought in the warrants.
On 9 June the Crown prosecution service wrote to the chief state solicitor stating that it was vital that it should hear from him forthwith as to whether English witnesses—and, if so, which—were required to attend the hearing on 13 June.
The following day a reply was received in writing from the State Solicitor that counsel had advised that the evidence already available was sufficient in law to establish the identity of McVeigh for the purpose of the district court hearing and that it was proposed to act on his advice. Accordingly, the evidence of witnesses from Britain to prove his identity would not be required. It was made clear that the Irish Attorney-General had personally considered and concurred in that advice.
Yesterday the Portlaoise district court considered the Irish state's application for the return of McVeigh to the United Kingdom. The unchallenged evidence led by the Irish state established that the prisoner before the Irish court was Patrick McVeigh, who had been released from Portlaoise prison on 18 May, and had formerly lived at 18 Forest street, Belfast. The English warrants expressly related to Patrick McVeigh of Portlaoise prison, formerly of 18 Forest street, Belfast.
However, the district justice held against the Irish state on the issue of identification. He concluded that the state had not established that the person before the court was


the person to whom the English warrants related. He accordingly ordered the release of McVeigh, which duly occurred.
That result is deeply dismaying. The Crown prosecution service, at every stage of the proceedings, asked the Irish authorities what evidence the Irish state would require in order to meet the requirements of Irish law. It meticulously complied with the advice that it received. That advice did not occasion surprise, because it was consistent with the requirements previously made by Irish courts, which have never required evidence linking the person named in a warrant to the commission by that person of a specific offence.
Shortly after yesterday's hearing the Irish Attorney-General telephoned me to express his own disappointment with the result. I expressed to him my own feeling of profound frustration and surprise. We have agreed to consult urgently in the light of yesterday's judgment as to the next steps the Irish state might take, both in the case of McVeigh, and as to the implications of that decision for the effective machinery for extradition that we both desire.

Mr. John Morris: I also express my astonishment at the extraordinary and totally unexpected decision of the district justice. To avoid confusion, despite the Attorney-General's reference to the 1987 Act, will he confirm that these proceedings were not under that Act, but were under the 1965 Act, and that the issue of identity could have been raised at any time since 1965?
Whatever the difficulties of the past, I am glad to have confirmation that all the evidence required of Her Majesty's Government was provided and of the basis and terms of the application made by the state solicitor, expressly and personally approved by the Irish Attorney-General, but which resulted in a decision that has caused dismay to all concerned with the effective working of extradition proceedings between civilised states on both sides of the water.
In those circumstances, will the Attorney-General confirm that there is a full and continuing close understanding between himself and the Irish Attorney-General, and that there is no suggestion of anything else regarding the Irish Attorney-General and the state solicitor in the application?
Secondly, despite the fact that this horse has bolted, what thought has the Attorney-General given to an appeal by way of case stated to ensure that there is a firm ruling for future extradition proceedings—I understand that there are a large number of important cases in the pipeline —and, possibly, the expedition of such an appeal'?
Lastly, what further steps does the Attorney-General have in mind to seek to ensure the avoidance of a repetition of this tragic result?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said at the outset of his remarks, and, indeed, subsequently. I welcome particularly his expression of dismay on behalf of the interests of all those—they are to be found on both sides of the water—who wish to see effective arrangements in place to secure the extradition of fugitive offenders, in every proper case, to this country.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that the issue of identity, upon which the district justice took his decision yesterday, could have been raised at any time since the scheme for the mutual backing of warrants came into effect between our two countries in 1965. The 1987 legislation amended that of 1965, to give the Irish Attorney-General a role in that procedure.
Thirdly, I can confirm that there is a close and personal relationship between myself and my opposite number in the Republic. I was grateful to him for telephoning me at an early stage after yesterday's decision, and I have again spoken to him on the telephone today. Any suggestion of our being at arm's length in this regard or in any other context has no foundation in fact.
As to the question of the Irish state asking for a case to be stated by the district justice, the House will not as yet know that the Minister of Justice in the Republic has made a statement in the Dail this afternoon to the effect that the Irish state will seek to appeal by that mechanism. I welcome that, because I believe that the view of the requirements of Irish law taken by the district justice yesterday could, if unchallenged, have serious implications for the efficacy of our extradition arrangements under the mutual backing of warrants procedure.
As to the future—the last matter raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I believe that the expressions of deep concern on behalf of the Irish Government are an earnest of their desire to see that the law in the Republic of Ireland is so framed and applied as to ensure that extradition will be effective.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to those who have responsibility for the working of the lower Irish courts that we in this country are thoroughly fed up with the fact that they move the goal posts every time we try to take action against an alleged terrorist? Will he make sure that the message is passed on to those authorities that we expect that loophole to be speedily closed so that the determination of our Government and the Irish Government to bring those terrorists to justice is fulfilled?

The Attorney-General: I have every sympathy with the indignation and dismay expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. The judges in the Republic are independent of the Executive, as they are in our country, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Irish Government are deeply disturbed by yesterday's decision. I am grateful and extremely pleased that the relationship that I have described exists between myself and my opposite number, and we shall both employ that to see that every means is taken to ensure that extradition will in future be effective.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Has the Attorney-General noted the disillusionment expressed in practically every English newspaper today? Does he agree that those feelings of betrayal result not so much from the refusal of some Irish Republic judges to deliver as from the utterly absurd notion that they ever would if left to their own devices?

The Attorney-General: I am not responsible for what is expressed in the comment columns of newspapers, but we in this Government are determined to ensure that extradition is effective, and I am satisfied that the Irish Government wish to see that extradition is effective. Yesterday's decision was a grave setback to confidence in


the administration of justice—to quote a phrase with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar in article 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the Attorney-General agree that the only winners to come out of the shameful farce that took place in the Irish court yesterday are the provisional IRA, which has already claimed a victory, and McVeigh, who has already gone into hiding? How many cases—I understand that there have been a number—of extradition have failed in the Irish courts on the basis of a technicality? Even if an appeal is pursued by the Dublin authorities by way of case stated, it will be on the narrow point of the district justice's findings on the basis of identification. Can the Attorney-General assure us that he will not continue to suffer the frustration to which he referred in his statement?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the only gainers are the terrorists when a proper case for extradition does not lead to the extradition of a fugitive offender. He will not expect me to endorse his description of proceedings in a judicial court yesterday, but I repeat that the British Government received the result with a deep sense of dismay. As we all know, there have been times when extradition cases have failed, but it is important to look forward rather than backward. The Irish Attorney-General and I have taken account of each other's concerns and we have reached a conclusion that is acceptable to both of us as to the procedure to be followed. We had each of us hoped with confidence that that agreement would lead to extradition taking place effectively in every proper case. We must wait and see whether that hope is fulfilled.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Following the two conversations that the Attorney-General has had with his opposite number in Dublin, he has reported that an appeal is to be made, and we shall have to see what happens. But what will happen in the meantime? Is it correct that the Garda cannot arrest McVeigh in the Republic until the appeal is over? What concerns me is not what the lawyers are doing, but whether anybody is looking for him.

The Attorney-General: I understand the position to be that, following McVeigh's release yesterday, there are no means by which he can be arrested unless further warrants are issued for his arrest. Therefore, that man is at large and whether the Irish Garda will in future be able, if authorised, to arrest him is uncertain. That is one of the grounds for the deep dismay of which I have spoken.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Looking forward, as my right hon. and learned Friend has suggested we do, should this outrageous absurdity not be regarded as a setback, not just to one Government, but to two, and to the police forces of both countries in their struggle against a common enemy? In trying to put common security on to a better footing—I realise that this is not strictly a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend—will Her Majesty's Government concentrate on the November review of the Anglo-Irish Conference?

The Attorney-General: This is, of course, a grave setback for both Governments. It is a setback, not just for the police and the security forces, but for everyone who has an interest in the apprehension of people who are

reasonably suspected of these very serious offences. There can be no doubt about that. Whether these matters will be reviewed in November or before is not a matter for me, but it is, I know, a matter of the gravest importance and the highest priority between the two countries that better arrangements shall be applied.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The whole House will of course share the sentiment of deploring that such a person as Patrick McVeigh should be at large and might be able to return to the kind of actions that are at issue in the courts. Will the Attorney-General tell the House whether, when discussions took place on the extradition treaty with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Extradition Act 1965 was taken into account? Will there be further discussions with the Government on that Act to ensure that this deplorable position cannot be repeated?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the fault, if fault there is, lies with the 1965 Act. That Act provided for a system whereby each country would authorise the backing of the other's warrants, and that worked perfectly well for this country for the ensuing 23 years. We regretted —and made it plain that we regretted—the 1987 legislation in the Republic that amended that legislation by interposing the Irish Attorney-General with a role to play in the procedure, but that did not bear on yesterday's decision. Yesterday's decision turned on whether identification had been sufficiently established. We acted on the very firm advice given to us by the Irish State Solicitor, which was in accordance with the previous unvaried practice of the Irish courts, and the outcome of those proceedings—yesterday's judgment—took us by surprise and caused us the greatest disturbance.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, he and his right hon. Friends believed that its signing would make cross-border security co-operation and the struggle against terrorism more effective, and that without the agreement such desirable increased co-operation would not be possible?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also recall that this is not the first occasion on which he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come to the House to comment on and express dismay at the course of events? Does he understand that in Northern Ireland there is increasing bewilderment that Her Majesty's Government should have given a place of special privilege to the Republic of Ireland, when the Republic appears incapable of co-operating with us in the defeat of terrorism?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will not expect me to usurp the function of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in commenting on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I shall simply say that the hopes that my hon. Friend has just expressed were present among my right hon. Friends—and myself, for what that is worth—when the agreement was signed.
It is not true that there has been no advance—there has been. Yesterday's decision, however, was a grave setback which will certainly cause the greatest dismay in the Province of Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend said. I believe that it is of the greatest importance that the two Governments decide together how best to improve the arrangements, so that in proper cases those who are suspected of grave offences are extradited to face justice.

Mr. David Alton: In the light of the earlier debacle over the case of Evelyn Glenholmes and the protracted discussions that have taken place subsequently, surely expressions of dismay are hardly adequate now. Does the Attorney-General really believe that what happened yesterday represents yet another triumph for the old firm of Fumble and Bumble, or does he think that it was a calculated piece of deliberate sabotage? Does he not agree that the real gainers yesterday were not just the IRA but those who want to undermine the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that the losers were those who want to see constitutional progress made on the basis of a united front by the British and Irish Governments? How quickly does the Attorney-General intend to meet his opposite number to discuss the matter face to face?

The Attorney-General: I think that I made it clear that I have a close relationship with the Irish Attorney General and that we are in close contact.
I do not accept that there are only two possible explanations for yesterday's debacle, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. What we must do is see how the arrangements can best be improved. Confidence will continue to wane unless such improvement takes place, and that is what the two Governments, in co-operation, must achieve.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is some comfort to know that the sentiments that he has reported have been expressed by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General in the Republic? Does he also accept that in this case words will not be enough, and that we will be looking, in the House and the country, for action by those two gentlemen to ensure that we get what we were promised by the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

The Attorney-General: I am certain that my hon. Friend's words will be noted. I do not think that in answering him I can add sensibly to what I have already said to the House this afternoon.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Attorney-General aware of a widespread belief, in Ireland and in this country, that an Irishman charged with a terrorist offence cannot obtain a fair trial before the British courts? Is he further aware that the cause of that unease is the failure of Her Majesty's Government and our courts to own up to the huge mistakes that have been made in the cases of the six innocent people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, and the 11 innocent persons convicted in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich case? Would it not be better to own up to those mistakes, so that in future when this sort of thing happens we can occupy the moral high ground?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman sinks reliably to every occasion. I entirely reject what he has said —[Interruption.]—in a contribution that has dramatically lowered the standard of exchanges, which have been characterised by the gravest concern and the highest responsibility.
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that yesterday's decision derived from a belief that there was no fair trial to be obtained in this country for any Irish citizen, that was not the ground advanced by the distict justice; nor would any sensible person have expected it to be so. I resent the imputation placed on the appeal that was heard over six or

seven weeks at the end of last year, and on the judgment pronounced by the Lord Chief Justice, which was a unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The matter must be approached on the basis of good faith on each side. Where it is found, after sensible examination, that our arrangements need improvement and that the Irish arrangements for extradition to this country need to be improved, everyone will wish to see that improvement—except, I suspect, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Michael Mates: Quite apart form the legal ramifications of yesterday's appalling muddle, is it not outrageous that McVeigh was released and not remanded or kept in arrest while any technical matters were sorted out? As this is the third time that known terrorists have been allowed to go off to their safe houses because of minor technicalities, is this not a grave flaw in the arrangements?
Would it not be entirely consistent with what Mr. Haughey said when he introduced the controversial amendments to the Extradition Act—if he saw that it was not working, he pledged to look at it again and make it work, improving it if necessary—for my right hon. and learned Friend to make the strongest representations that it is not working and that we look to Mr. Haughey to keep his word?

The Attorney-General: We certainly look to the proper operation of the Extradition Act 1965, as amended by the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987. Where a case of this kind occurs, confidence in the operation of the law in Ireland is gravely shaken. Speaking only for myself, as my hon. Friend will recognise, I would welcome means by which a prisoner could be detained in custody pending an appeal on a decision taken at the court of first instance; that is to say, a district justice. I would welcome that. Had that been in place yesterday and operated, McVeigh would have remained in custody instead of setting off into the unknown, whence he may or may not ultimately be discovered and arrested. Speaking for myself, I believe that that would be a desirable change. I do not doubt that that will be one of the matters which the two Governments will want to consider.

Mr. William Ross: What will happen to Mr. McVeigh should he be so foolish as to return to his former home in Belfast? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman, during the course of his investigations into this matter, looked at today's report in The Irish Times, which states that this district justice served in the offices of a former Minister of the Irish Republic and also worked in the practice of a second former Minister of the Irish Republic? Therefore, he must be very deeply steeped in the politics of that nation and be aware of the real political attitudes in the Irish Republic with regard to extradition of IRA terrorists to this country.
Is it not also clear from all that has happened down the years, when extradition request after extradition request has been refused on the most tenuous of technicalities, such as pinholes in paper and God knows what else, that certain judges in the Irish Republic will always find a technical reason to refuse extradition for known IRA terrorists?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that if McVeigh appears and is discovered in the North, in Belfast or in any other part of the United Kingdom, he will be arrested. I have nothing to say on the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about the good faith of the Irish judge concerned. Finally, I confirm that a number of cases have failed through what in this country and in these courts would be described as the merest technicalities. However, in fairness I must say that yesterday's case does not fall into that category.
The Irish justice took the view that identification had not been established. That is an important factor in what must be established by the requesting state in any extradition proceedings. What caused the greatest surprise and dismay was the view taken by the Irish court as to whether that important factor had been established. We took and relied upon the advice of the Irish authorities that the evidence would be sufficient to establish that. We were not surprised by that, because it fitted exactly the pattern of previous Irish requirements.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it comes as no surprise to his many friends, I suspect on both sides of the House, that neither he nor his Department is in any way culpable? Under what time scale will he work? It is very important, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will agree, to get the matter sorted out, because the affair is debilitating for the defence forces and the forces of law and order both north and south of the border. It is important that we get it right very soon. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the time scale?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's comments. This matter must be taken forward with all sensible speed, because people will not continue to put up with the failure of proper cases for extradition and will not have confidence in the administration of justice—to cite the Anglo-Irish Agreement again—if proper cases appear to be going wrong.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Attorney-General wise to get quite so angry with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? Does he not recognise that there is a strand of serious opinion which has become totally cynical and asks, "What on earth do we expect a district judge to do in the light of 500 years of history other than to find any possible technicality?" I gather that many other cases may come up. Do the Government believe that in future other judges will not find technicalities of this nature?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must give the Irish judiciary credit for wanting to apply the law of Ireland. Yesterday's decision occasioned equal surprise in the Republic of Ireland and here in the application of the law of Ireland. I do not think that there is anything to be gained or that anybody's interests, Irish or British, are advanced by reciting past grievances. To do that implies that the Irish judge has acted in a dishonourable, as distinct from a possibly mistaken, manner.

Mr. Michael Latham: Stripped to its essentials, was not yesterday's disgraceful decision a catastrophe for Anglo-Irish relations? When my right hon. and learned Friend spoke on the telephone to his opposite

number, did he make it clear to him that the only way to rebuild those relations is for the Garda to find this man and bring him before a court as quickly as possible?

The Attorney-General: I have made very clear the light in which I viewed yesterday's decision. I do not know whether it is a catastrophe for Anglo-Irish relations, but it is a very grave setback for everyone who wants to see extradition working in every proper case.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Attorney-General and the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box have criticised hon. Members for criticising judges in this country on the decisions that they have made, and they have said constantly that judges should not be influenced in their decisions when the evidence is put before them. Will the Attorney-General tell us this afternoon whether the Government will influence the Irish Government to influence judges in their decisions in future on extradition?

The Attorney-General: I have made the Government's attitude to yesterday's decision perfectly clear. We wish to see extradition working properly in accordance with the requirements of Irish law. That is what the Irish Government want to see. I do not believe that there is anything to be gained by suggesting, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the Irish judge was influenced by matters that were extraneous to his judicial duty and derived from personal prejudice. I would not make that allegation. It was made by implication by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, and that was a disgraceful and most regrettable inference to draw. We want Irish law and Irish procedural arrangements to secure the extradition of fugitive offenders to this country in every proper case.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all sane people in this country will recognise that he has bent over backwards to accommodate the more restrictive arrangements required by the Irish Republic? Would it not be wise to issue arrest warrants straight away? Will he tactfully suggest to the Irish Government that, in pursuit of an appeal by way of case stated, it should be made clear that the existing law between the two countries does not allow for the introduction of evidence from Britain about the identity of the person before the court as a person being responsible for any particular crime? That is excluded by the arrangements at present that apply between us and the Irish Republic. If that is not established, many other cases may come forward in which another judge in the Irish jurisdiction will claim to have insufficient evidence about the identity of the person before him.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend, who knows so much about extradition, has put his finger on the crucial point. Irish practice and our practice have always established a barrier at the time when the warrants are issued. The Irish courts have never previously sought to go behind that barrier to see whether there is evidence connecting the prisoner before the court with the commission by that prisoner of a specific offence. Only by reason of the importance of maintaining that position have the Irish Government decided to proceed by way of appeal by case stated. Fresh warrants could be issued only if they were supported by the very evidence that we were told by the Irish authorities was not needed by Irish law. l do not wish to set a precedent whereby extradition requests are


supported by evidence that is not required by Irish law, because thereafter we should always be required to do the same.

Mr. Tony Marlow: At this early stage, which is the more likely alternative: that there is something wrong with the system or—I put it no higher than this—that members of the Irish judiciary are bent by their own republicanism, bullied by the IRA, or just plain barmy? If it is the second alternative, where on earth do we go from here?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will not expect me to endorse any of those adjectives. What I shall say —it is the limit of what is helpful, sensible and responsible to say—is that each Government must look at this case and decide whether either the law or the procedures are the best that it is practicable to devise to ensure that properly suspected fugitive offenders are extradited.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will not the reeds start to rustle at Runnymede if Opposition Members continually impugn the integrity of Her Majesty's judges? Should not those of us who live in the real world, both in the United Kingdom and Ireland, look for ways in which we can improve these extradition arrangements, including the sensible suggestions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)?

The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Birmingham prisoners were tried at first instance and their appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on a reference by my predecessor, so their case has been subjected to a substantial further hearing. Our objection is that McVeigh will not apparently be subjected to a trial.

Mr. David Wilshire: When my right hon. and learned Friend reviews future policies, will he take into account the fact that now that it appears that the Irish courts have yet again decided not to co-operate with us and prefer to behave like an unprincipled banana republic's courts, a growing number of us in this country have decided that wringing our hands and saying, "Tut,tut," is not enough? I agree with the adjectives used by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and say that the time has come when we should treat the Irish Republic like any other foreign country and withdraw the special treatment of its citizens within the United Kingdom.

The Attorney-General: The special treatment to which my hon. Friend refers in the context of extradition has been highly satisfactory for the interests of this country, because our warrants have been endorsed hitherto by Irish authorities without exception. As a result, people have been arrested and extradited to this country without our having to show prima facie evidence, which we must do in every other case. It is not helpful to make general assertions about Irish courts. The most that it is helpful and sensible to do today is to make perfectly clear the dismay, disappointment and surprise of the House at the outcome. I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said in that regard

about the outcome of yesterday's proceedings. I agree that we must urgently consult the Irish Government on how we can best secure that such a thing does not occur again.

Mr. James Couchman: When my right hon. and learned Friend communicates with his opposite number in the Republic, will he reiterate that deep damage has been done to the faith of those of us on both sides of the House who have always supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement? I remind hon. Members that the House endorsed that agreement by a massive majority in 1985. Will my right hon. and learned Friend emphasise the damage caused by this perverse and apparently through-the-looking-glass decision of the Irish court? In his early investigations, did my right hon. and learned Friend check to see whether there was in any way, shape or form any substance to the reason that the district judge gave for disputing the evidence on identification yesterday? If not, we shall be further strengthened in our cynicism about the commitment of that Irish court.

The Attorney-General: We are expecting a full report from the Irish authorities about what occurred in the Portlaoise district court yesterday. Before that is received, I certainly would not endorse the adjective implied by my hon. Friend. It is necessary that the Irish authorities should know the depth of feeling that yesterday's decision has engendered in the House and in the country. I do not believe that they are under any illusions about that, but it certainly bears repetition and it will be repeated.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House who have so far supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement, are disillusioned? Does he agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is now one-sided? Does he accept that it is as one-sided as unilateral disarmament, and that for many of us it is as discredited and unacceptable as unilateral disarmament?

The Attorney-General: Not least of the dangers of a decision that gives rise to the reactions to which yesterday's decision has given rise is that it leads to exactly the sort of conclusions and results that my hon. Friend has expressed. It is fair to say that the Irish Government cannot direct any judicial decision. Their judiciary is independent, as ours is, and it is fair that that should be borne in mind. That does not mean that confidence in the relationship between our two countries is not gravely damaged by what took place yesterday. We must keep that in mind and do our best to ensure that there is in each country the best procedure, as well as the best substantive law, to secure that extradition in every proper case takes place.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and everything to do with the fact that, despite the good intentions of both Governments—and they are good intentions—we cannot agree to legislate in a way that will cater for bloody-minded, eccentric and perhaps partial judges? [Interruption.] I said perhaps. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that yesterday the judge completely abandoned the standard practice for dealing with extradition under the Extradition Act 1965, which has allowed 700 people to be extradited from the South of Ireland to this country.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that this has nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, because article 8 states:
The two Governments agree on the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice.
It is perfectly true that hitherto that phrase has been cited only in relation to confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Article 8 continues:
The Conference shall seek … measures which would give substantial expression to this aim.
Therefore, this is not wholly divorced from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I appreciate and sympathise with my hon. Friend's indignation, but I cannot usefully add to what I have already said.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General give an indication of the likely time scale of a case stated to be heard? Can it be expedited? While waiting for a case to be heard, is there any difficulty in starting fresh proceedings on the assumption that McVeigh may be found?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give a precise time scale, if indeed it is a precise time scale, but we shall press for the earliest hearing of that appeal. I wish to give thought to the possibility of starting fresh proceedings in consultation with my opposite number. We wish to take every possible step to ensure that this man is brought into custody again as soon as is proper and possible.

Members' Interests

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been reported in the British press that a financial matter has been raised in the South African Parliament concerning an hon. Member of this House. I have given the hon. Member notice that I wish to raise the matter with you. It concerns a hotel bill for £700, and the Speaker of the South African Parliament has said that that sum will be paid by the South African authorities. This matter concerns the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I should like your ruling on the Register of Members' Interests.
I went to the Library to find out about this matter and discovered that the latest information regarding the hon. Member for Luton, North——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. This is not a matter for me. He should raise it with the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was specifically set up to deal with such matters.

Mr. Winnick: I note what you say, Mr. Speaker. My other question does not concern Members' interests. It relates to the declaration of interests. Clearly trips have been paid for by a foreign Government and an hon. Member has received hospitality. The hon. Member for Luton, North frequently speaks about South Africa and gives the regime's point of view. Therefore, should we not reach the conclusion that his views reflect those of the regime which pays for his various trips, hotel bills, and the rest of it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should pursue this matter with the Select Committee.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winmck) to cast such aspersions across the Floor of the House? He says that I speak for the South African regime. That is an aspersion on my character. Also staying at that luxury hotel in South Africa, I should mention that Mr. James Robbins of the BBC spent most of his time lying by the pool. He was there at British licence payers' expense—at our expense—not at the South African Government's expense.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for this Chamber.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order. It arises from a ruling that you gave yesterday, but it is different from yesterday's point of order.
You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday, at the end of the statements, I pointed out that the Secretary of State for Wales had been carrying out a briefing and was planning a press conference today in advance of a statement that was due to be made in this House this afternoon. I shall quote two sentences from your ruling because it is important, but my point of order is completely different from yesterday's. You said:
I believe that the House of Commons should always be given information in advance of the press or anyone else…I am sure that what has been said will be carefully noted by those on the Government Front Bench."—[Official Report, 13 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 36]
On the basis of your ruling on the briefing that took place yesterday, when you said that it was out of order, I seek clarification on a new process that appears to have occurred today. Yesterday I pointed out that the press conference in the valleys was being held at 10.40 am, although we would not have the opportunity to have the statement until, at the earliest, 3.30 pm this afternoon. Instead of cancelling the press conference, the Secretary of State put into the Vote Office not the statement, but documents that contained some of the information, but not all of it, which was available in his statement and available at the press conference.
Will you clarify what the House should understand—I thought I was clear on what you meant—by always giving information in advance to the House? Is the mere laying of documents in advance of a statement sufficient justification for a Minister then to go ahead with intensive briefing outside the scope of those documents in anticipation of a statement and before the House of Commons has even heard that statement?

Mr. Speaker: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman heard my answer to his former question, when I said that I have no authority to postpone press conferences. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Williams: rose——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say more than I said yesterday. I do not believe it is right for the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to use my comments in support of his argument. It was not a ruling; it was a reasonable feeling that such things should not happen.

Mr Williams: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that when you took office you undertook—I know that you have tried firmly to sustain that undertaking—to protect the interests of Back Benchers. One of the important interests of Back Benchers is that we should have the proper right to interrogate Ministers and that Ministers should observe the conventions and rules of this House. It is every bit as important that they observe the rules as that we should observe the niceties of the symbols of state. Anything that undermines the status of the Chair damages this House. In that case, I think that it is a matter for you

as to whether the placing of documents constitutes—according to your judgment yesterday—providing to this House advance information that is adequate to let a Minister escape the convention that he should make his statement before he briefs the press.

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I have no authority to dictate to the Government whether press conferences should be held or not or whether press releases are placed in the Library or the Vote Office. What I said yesterday was intended to be helpful to the House—that I had been informed that in advance of the press conference, information would be released in the Vote Office today. I believe that that happened.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. I raise the same matter because I believe that it is of great importance. I shall start by referring to the Mace and what happened some weeks ago. The fact is that neither "Erskine May" nor the manual of procedure requires that an hon. Member does not drop the Mace on the Floor. It is a practice that we deprecate because we know that it is wrong. We do not need a rule of this House to tell us that this is so. We do not do such things because we know such actions are unacceptable.
I believe that the actions of a Secretary of State who contravenes your view, if not your ruling—you have already said it was not a ruling—and also contradicts the will of the House in the sense that he knows that it would be the will of the House for a statement to be made, are as bad as dropping the Mace on the Floor. Both actions are an affront to our institution. Although they do not contravene the procedure, they contravene the spirit of what Members expect of other Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day. The hon. Gentleman takes a long time to get to his point. Will he please get to it?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It may appear to you that we have a busy day and that I am taking a long time, but these matters are important. We spent several hours discussing the dropping of the Mace. I submit that the dropping of the Mace is less of a crime than a Secretary of State refusing to make a statement to Parliament because he wants to run a public relations campaign in Wales. That is why this matter is important.

Mr. Speaker: I am not saying that this is not an important matter. The House knows that Mr. Speaker has an obligation to ensure that the rules of the House are kept. It is not within his authority to ensure that all the conventions are kept. This is a self-disciplining Chamber and I hope that the conventions of the House will always be kept.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that this is a self-disciplining Chamber, but what happens if you make repeated statements from the Chair requiring Ministers, wherever possible, to come to the House to make statements prior to making those same statements outside the House, but they simply ignore your requests? What happens if year after year, month after month, occasion after occasion, they persist in carrying out such actions? What happens then?

Mr. Speaker: If conventions are consistently broken, I believe that the Procedure Committee would look into the matter, and as a result, we shall probably get more rules.


I am in favour of few rules and strongly in favour of keeping to the conventions of this self-disciplining Chamber.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the Secretary of State made a statement to the House at the first opportunity that was available to him after the documents were issued?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct.

Member' Interests

6.10

Mr. Richard Caborn: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), Mr. Speaker. Not keeping up-to-date lists of Members' interests can be extremely misleading to hon. Members. Last week, as you probably know, an injunction was to be taken out against the BBC in connection with the highly successful concert at Wembley on behalf of Nelson Mandela. When many of us looked at the rules of the House and at Members' interests, we believed that the hon. Member for Luton, North had gone on a major publicity spree for that concert, and had come to his senses by opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa. We thank him for that.
However, having read The Guardian and the other sources of publicity given on Saturday to the hon. Gentleman's injection of South African money, we understood that giving the concert money had been a crass mistake on his part. So it can be misleading if Members' interests have not been kept up to date. We came to our conclusion wrongly, but we still want to thank the hon. Member for Luton, North for the massive publicity that he gave to that successful concert.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it has always been regarded as wholly in order for hon. Members to put into the Register of Members' Interests visits that they may make to another country, whether at their own expense or at the expense of a foreign Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has recorded such visits in the past.

Mr. Winnick: He is a paid South African agent.

Mr. Forth: Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, it is as legitimate for my hon. Friend to make such visits as it is, for example, for the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who had an ANC-funded visit to Tanzania, which is also in the Register of Members' Interests? To avoid confusion, it would help the House, my hon. Friend and me if you could confirm yet again that there is nothing wrong with hon. Members going on fact-finding trips to other countries, at their own or at another Government's expense, if such trips are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests? That is a widely practised phenomenon.

Mr. Speaker: In the interests of the whole House, I confirm that that is absolutely correct. Hon. Members have every right to undertake visits, and should record them in the Register of Members' Interests, which is always available for Members to consult.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has been calling out from a sedentary position that I am a paid representative of the South African Government. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was brought before you some two weeks ago, and that the hon. Gentleman reluctantly withdrew those remarks then. May I ask you to do the same today?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear what is alleged, but if the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made those remarks from a sedentary position, I ask him to withdraw them as a matter of honour.

Mr. Winnick: I am a man of honour, but the fact remains that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) went on various trips to South Africa——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with that. It would help the House and me, if the hon. Gentleman made those remarks, if he would now withdraw them. He is an hon. Member, and I am sure that he would expect the same from a Conservative Member.

Mr. Winnick: May I resolve the matter, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I do not withdraw anything, but if you ask me——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remarks, not to qualify them.

Mr. Winnick: I was about to conclude by saying that, without changing my mind in the slightest, if you, as the Speaker of the House of Commons, ask me to withdraw, I obviously have no alternative, and I do so.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 8242/85 and 6944/86 on higher education diplomas be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents. —[Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment Order 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 964) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am amazed that you took the other points of order, but mine had to wait——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: he was not on his feet, and we have a heavy day ahead of us.

Mr. Cohen: My point of order arises out of Question Time. I wanted to raise my point of order immediately after I had asked my question. I went to see you, Mr. Speaker, and you said that I could not raise it at 3.30 pm, but had to wait until after all the statements.
My question, No. 15, was directed to the Secretary of State for Social Services. It was linked with Question 1, so I was called early. It was:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefits to be in full operation.
My supplementary question to the Secretary of State raised the plight of a number of my constituents, individuals and families, who are up to '£26 worse off under the changes and have been caused acute hardship by them. I followed up that information with key aspects——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not want to go over this again. I heard the question, and I want to know the point of order for me.

Mr. Cohen: I must explain it, Mr. Speaker. You heard the question, but I wonder whether you heard the Minister's answer——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did, but this should be a point of order to me, not a rerun of Question Time.

Mr. Cohen: I shall cut short what I asked. I asked about heating charge rebates and how they were applicable to the transitional arrangements—for they are. My question was perfectly relevant to the substantive question on the Order Paper. In his cursory answer, the Secretary of State, in effect, said that what I had said had nothing to do——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an absolute abuse. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to have a rerun of Question Time and is not raising a point of order with me.

Mr. Cohen: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it only if there is a point of order for me.

Mr. Cohen: It is very much a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there was an abuse of the House—by the Minister, who did not properly answer my relevant question. Hon. Members such as I take oral questions seriously. I have not been known to miss them. I come in especially for oral questions when my question is high on the Order Paper, and I expect a decent answer——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member there. Throughout this point of order he has been raising matters that are plainly for the Minister, not for me. We must move on.

Mr. Cohen: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear no more, as this is an abuse. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Private Security

Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of the private security industry; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased that, after three long statements and many points of order, I at last have the opportunity of trying to convince the House of the need to accept licensing in the private security industry. This Bill is probably closer in time to an Adjournment debate than it is to Question Time.
I introduce my Bill to establish a system of public licensing, to replace the present wholly unsatisfactory system of partial self-regulation. The Bill's origins date back to the unsuccessful attempt by the present Secretary of State for Employment to introduce a system of public licensing—with the Security Industry Licensing Bill. I introduced a Bill in 1977 and, having been so patient, now have the opportunity to try again 11 years later. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) tried unsuccessfully last year. I must also compliment the efforts made by Members of another place, such as Lord Willis and Baroness Phillips, who have been trying to pass similar legislation in that Chamber.
The security industry in its broadest sense is enormous, probably employing 250,000 people. It has grown because of the growth of crime, because of new threats such as terrorism and drugs, and because of the enormous increase in counterfeiting. Technology has spurred it on. Police numbers have not grown as many people would want them to, and the private security industry is filling the vacuum.
The industry is painfully easy to enter and profits can be high. These factors have led to a proliferation of companies. No doubt the industry will survive well into the next century, and I have no desire to see it terminated. However, I want to see a proper framework within which the Government can establish the industry on a proper footing.
The number of companies is unknown. I looked at the Yellow Pages for London and found that there are 400 companies working under various categories of security —and that is just for central London. There are companies offering guard services and cash in transit services, and companies providing security equipment. There are companies providing store detectives; there are security consultants, and others offering VIP protection. Some companies are getting into the areas of exotic professions such as the hiring of mercenaries, bugging and other forms of industrial espionage and in-house security.
There has been an enormous expansion of an industry that remains outside the scope of the House. There is much that is right in the industry. It contains many thousands of honest, industrious people trying to do a good job in difficult circumstances. The overwhelming majority are honest and hard-working. It is a dangerous job and the chances of a security officer, particularly one involved with cash in transit, being killed are significantly higher even than those of the police.
I want to see the industry developed effectively and efficiently, so that it provides a proper service to those who use it. I want to see improved conditions of service and employment for the many people who work in it. I want to


minimise the likelihood of those who have serious criminal records getting into the industry, and I seek to establish accountability.
When one asks what is wrong with the industry, most people point to criminality. In the Brinks-Mat robbery, £26 million of bullion was knocked off. A decade ago, the Purolator company suffered a £2 million robbery, the money being taken by a criminal who was employed for a few weeks and used his experience to rob the company. There was a case a couple of months ago of a reputable company which hired a security guard working in a van. He zipped off with £30,000. A newspaper report said:
A worker at the mill said 'It was almost comical; the guard left behind was jumping up and down in a state of shock. He just kept on saying 'My mate has done a bunk with the van."'
That is funny in a way, but it is also very worrying that the industry has people with serious criminal backgrounds or people who have little interest or competence in the industry.
I am concerned about low efficiency and poor performance. Very few companies have a good training programme. Three days is the average and the overwhelming majority of companies conduct no training at all. Turnover can be as high as 100 per cent. and a recent report said that that was the case in 45 per cent. of the good companies. How can we have an efficient industry when there is such low morale, low wages and a 100 per cent. turnover? I am worried by the low public esteem and the poor relations with the police, who regard the industry in many ways with indifference and contempt. In many cases that is deserved. The poor end of the industry damages those who are trying to do a good job. While many have expressed anxieties from the civil liberties standpoint, others have used the "private army" argument. I have not, because the industry is too inefficient to constitute a serious collective threat to the state.
A system of self-regulation is exercised by the British Security Industry Association Limited. It has a small inspectorate, and although the large companies belong to it, the overwhelming majority of companies do not. There are now more members than there were four years ago, but at that time a former head of the inspectorate of the BSIA said it was possible that fewer than 0·1 per cent. of guarding companies belonged to the BSIA. In some respects, the BSIA is doing a reasonable job, but I cannot accept that a limited company, a trade association, should have such an important responsibility for regulating the industry. However, it regulates only part of the industry and the companies that are not affiliated to it are the ones that I am most worried about.
What model of regulation should be followed? It should not be self-regulatory, nor should it be regulated by local authorities, because they have little surplus capacity. It cannot be regulated by the police, because they do not have the resources. I would much prefer the semi-anarchic status quo to be superseded by licensing by the Home Office. There are numerous examples of licensing abroad. It is carried out in Canada, most states in the United States

and in most European countries. We have a precedent in the United Kingdom in part III of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, which licenses security services in Northern Ireland.
There are many examples of other United Kingdom professions that are regulated by statutory authorities. We have bodies for gambling and for broadcasting and employment. Betting shops are regulated in that way, as are consumer credit agencies, nursing homes and professions such as doctors. Why should taxi drivers be subjected to statutory control while people who protect lives and millions of pounds worth of property are totally immune from any serious system of regulation?
There is a great deal of support for and some opposition to my proposals. Criminals have no reason to support them and the Home Office has little sympathy. I distinguish between the two groups: one is purely criminal and the other is totally inert. The Police Federation of England and Wales supports licensing and the International Federation of Security Associations and Private Investigators seeks an improved system, as do some companies in the BSIA. However, the Home Office is opposed. It does not like quangoes, but prefers self-regulation and is not convinced that there is adequate evidence of criminality.
A private security licensing authority set up by the Home Office would not simply be a gatekeeper laying down standards of wages and training and so on. I want to see the Licensing Authority acting as a catalyst for reform.
The case for the reform of the security industry is overwhelming. One day, the Home Office will be compelled to act, but there will probably have to be a crisis before it acts. How much better for it and for us to prepare for that eventuality now and not assume the typically British response of reacting after the crisis.
I urge hon. Members to support the Bill. The question of who guards the guards is very important. I hope that approval of the Bill will help to settle that question. It has been 10 years since I last introduced such a Bill. I appreciate that Ministers from the Home Office are present in the House and I hope that I shall not have to wait another 10 years for another opportunity. I hope that the Home Office will take up the cudgels and that we will see a proper industry, accountable and efficient and serving the people who work in it and the companies themselves serving the consumer.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce George, Sir Ian Gilmour, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Keith Speed, Mr. Stuart Randall, Mr. Neil Thorne, Sir Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Doug Hoyle and Mr. Merlyn Rees.

PRIVATE SECURITY

Mr. Bruce George accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of the private security industry; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

Orders of the Day — Housing Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the Minister issued a pamphlet entitled "Tenant's Choice", which was laid in the Vote Office. It was obviously intended for the debate. I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that it needs to be corrected, and I would be grateful if he would put that in train to ensure that hon. Members and people outside are not misled. I know that the Minister cannot do anything about the matter at this stage.
The pamphlet reproduces part of the Housing Act 1985. It reproduces page 358 of that Act but does not include the amendments that went through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They affect the power of the Secretary of State to decide whether a house is suitable for an elderly person. The House of Lords removed that power and gave it back to the local authority. The pamphlet suggests that the power lies with the Secretary of State. I should be grateful if the Minister would ensure that that is corrected in due course, but I understand that he cannot do anything about it now.
On another, but related, point, in Committee on 8 March, columns 493 and 1544, both Ministers made pledges to the Committee that they would produce a social landlords' charter, to be debated on Report. We have not had that, and I wonder whether, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can draw to the Minister's attention yet again the inadequate preparation of the Bill. We were told that we could debate what is an important part of the Bill on Report. We do not have the charter so obviously, in those circumstances, we cannot debate it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think the hon. Member realises that he has been addressing his remarks to the Minister rather than to the Chair. I think that the best thing that we can now do is to proceed with the debate, and it may be that he will receive some answers to the points that he has made.

Clause 45

HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANTS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 377, in page 34, line 6, at end insert
'except that in respect of grants made to charitable housing associations and fully mutual housing co-operatives for the provision of residential accommodation as sole or main residence, the Corporation shall calculate and pay the grant so that it is sufficient to enable and to ensure that the costs that are to be financed by rent shall not exceed 20 per cent. of the average weekly net income as determined by the index established under subsection (6) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 378, in page 34, line 24, at end insert—
'(6) Within six months of the commencement of this section, the Housing Corporation shall establish, and

thereafter annually update, a regional index (Essential Services Employees Earnings Index) of the average net weekly earnings of employees working in essential services and industries.'.

New clause 38—Rent Recoverable by Social Landlords—
'(1) Where a tenancy is granted for a dwelling-house by a landlord who is—

(a) a registered housing association, within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985;
(b) a person who has acquired property under Part IV of this Act; or
(c) a public sector landlord, within the meaning of section 86 of this Act.,

the rent recoverable by the landlord shall be not higher than a maximum rent for the region in which the dwelling-house is located to be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the maximum weekly rent recoverable in a region shall be a sum not greater than 20 per cent. of the average net earnings of manual employees in the region.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), average net earnings of manual employees shall be calculated by taking into account average gross earnings of full-time employees in manual occupations whose pay is not affected by absence, less—

(a) an amount in respect of income tax equivalent to an amount calculated by applying to those earnings the basic rate of tax after allowing for a deduction for personal relief of the amount specified in section 257(1)(b) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; and
(b) an amount in respect of primary Class 1 contributions payable under the Social Security Act 1975 in respect of those earnings.

(4) A maximum recoverable rent determined under this section shall be known as an "affordable rent".'

Mr. Hughes: The subject of this important debate is affordable rents. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to make a preliminary comment about the way in which we have come to it. This is the third day on which the Housing Bill has come back to the House for debate on Report. It is exactly three hours after the normally planned time that these debates should start. I wonder whether there was not some complicity between those who arrange the Commons business to put in two statements that certainly did not appear as if they inevitably had to be made today. I wonder whether it has been done in the hope that, yet again, housing is, hopefully, pushed away from the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers, because the Government would be embarrassed at what the headlines might otherwise be.
This Bill will bring substantial changes to the lives of many people. Not only does it not have enough time in general, but, on the day that it has time, we start the debate in what anyone would define as evening as opposed to afternoon.
It has also astonished those who have followed the progress of the Housing Bill—on both sides of the House and outside—how little attention the press has given to this major and important measure. Perhaps it is because the new language of housing—assured tenancies, assured shorthold tenancies, social landlords and mixed finance —is unfamiliar and sounds technical. However, perhaps there is a more important reason—that in Thatcher's Britain the press, which has to sell its wares, considers that the two thirds of people who own their own homes are perfectly comfortable anyway. It is not so bothered about the one third of the population who rent or the increasing number who have no homes at all.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point, because a number of us, himself included, have been trying to emphasise housing in the political debate. This morning I was listening, perhaps unusually, to the "Today in Westminister" programme, and I was worried when it was said that the most important business before the House was the two Bills dealing with mining subsidence. The programme then continued to give an extract of a point of order about the Norman Shaw doors being closed, and ignored the rest of the Housing Bill.

Mr. Hughes: Unusually, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I was driving home at the time of "Today in Parliament" and driving in at the time of "Yesterday in Parliament" and I heard both reports. Last night I think the Housing Bill was reported at about six minutes to midnight—the last six minutes of the half-hourly report. As a result of this morning's programme, one almost would not have known that we had debated housing at all yesterday. I find that sad, and an unusually poor reflection on those who edit and report those two programmes, which are normally fair in giving priority to the appropriate matters before the House.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): A moment or two ago the hon. Gentleman suggested that the press had not given due consideration to the Bill in Standing Committee. I remind him that it has been covered comprehensively by The Independent and The Times. The new clauses and amendments that he tabled in Standing Committee were scrutinised carefully by the Municipal Journal. I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Andy Marr of The Independent for his article of about 10 days ago tracing the history right back to speeches prepared by my right hon. and learned Friend, now the Foreign Secretary, in the early 1950s, pleading for decontrol of rents to increase the supply of rented accommodation for those who deservedly demand the right to rent.

Mr. Hughes: The article by Andrew Marr was an excellent article, tracing the history of a subject which it is easy to see in the short term. Many of the newspapers have written feature articles and specialist articles that have been good. I was not pretending that there had not been that sort of reporting. My anxiety was that the substantive debates had not been reported. For example, today the parliamentary page of The Independent had no report, and The Guardian had two columns, each of one inch and a half, partly because of the time of day that it was printed.
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope not to offend him, because later I shall refer to him. We had a debate on the subject in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution. I should like to suggest a way now to proceed with which he will agree.
The crucial sector of the Bill that we are now debating includes clauses that completely rewrite the rules about rented housing. As that is still the way in which a third of the population occupy their homes, I believe that the entire country would be interested. It is not even certain that those who buy their own houses will always remain in owner-occupied housing.
This debate is about the most important element in that sector. It is about rents and whether they will be affordable for people who must pay them. The rents that people have to pay are neither a new nor a technical concept. I hope that the debate will mean that the threats that the

Government's plans pose for many people who rent, and many people who would not be able to afford market rents or anything like them, will be reported well in the press in all parts of England and Wales. They need to be reported, because I believe that pressure will be put on the Government to amend their legislation to guarantee that affordable rented housing continues to be available and that its supply increases rather than decreases.
Last night I went to the celebration of the opening of a second hostel by an organisation called Thames Reach in the London borough of Westminister. That hostel takes from the streets people who would otherwise be homeless. We are talking about two categories of people today. The first category are those who at the moment have no homes at all, but who are certainly not in the category of people who wish to be members of what the Government Front Bench often call "the dependency culture".
I met a Scotsman, aged 62, who had been sleeping rough in London for nine years. Until some years ago he slept in a tent, but somebody burned his tent down. During that time he never claimed benefit. He went to the wholesale markets to get fruit and vegetables. He went to the warehouses to pick up damaged packets of sugar, tea and butter. He wanted to be independent, but he just did not have a home. That man has been in the hostel in north London now for a couple of weeks. He does not sleep on the floor: he sleeps in a bed. He enjoys that. He is beginning to realise the sort of opportunity that he could still have, even though he is 62. That then is the sort of person we are talking about in connection with housing associations, social housing and affordable rents.
We are talking also about many people who do a full day's or week's work—people who earn, but do not earn enough to escape the need for rented housing. They might be employed in the catering industry or the teaching profession; they might be nurses, bus drivers or people who have office jobs. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and I have met and talked to such people in the context of a report produced about London, but other such people who are also well clear of the dependency culture are to be found in other cities and towns. They, too, need affordable rents, because to contemplate a society in which rent takes 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 per cent. of their income is unconscionable.
We debated this issue in Committee on 9 February, and some hon. Members who were there then are here today. I do not intend to go over old ground. I argued that there were two principal reasons why affordable rents were needed: first, the security of all the parties involved and, secondly, the respectability of all the parties involved—tenants, housing associations, investors and the Government. The Bill should provide for rents to remain genuinely affordable by housing association and other social housing tenants.
I give credit to the Minister for being sympathetic, but he said that a regime with rent regulations would be more politicised than a regime where public housing association grant levels would be the factor in determining rents. I quibbled with that then, and I quibble with it now. The amount of housing association grant—the contribution by the taxpayer—is as much a political matter decided by a Government as the amount fixed as an affordable rent by Government or local authority. The Minister's argument was profoundly flawed on that and on other issues.
Although the arguments still stand strongly for security and respectability of affordable rents, we must also ask questions about who should bear the risk of providing housing. The danger of the Government's plans is that individual tenants will have to bear the consequences of the financial risks taken by large institutions. We must ask why the wider public, through the relevant Government agency—the Housing Corporation in England and Tai Cymru in Wales—should not bear the risk. Although there is now a fair rent regime and some private finance in the housing association movement, which the Minister so much admires—such as Sutton Hastoe, which has brought in private finance over many years and not just in the last couple of years through the Challenge initiative—and although private finance has responded in the context of a rent restriction, the Government still argue that there should be no limitation on rents other than market levels if investors are to be attracted.
The basic case of principle is that the risks of housing association and all social housing projects should not and must not fall on the tenants, who are the most vulnerable in our society. Instead, they must be carried by housing associations and other social landlords. When their reserves are inadequate because they are only medium or small associations, the Housing Corporation, making use of public reserves, must make additional payments as necessary.
The extent to which housing associations should be expected to bear risk of losses is limited. All housing associations are non-profit-making bodies and, as such, do not have the benefit of making profits in the market place to compensate for bearing the risk of losses. As I made clear in Committee, I accept that it is reasonable of the Government to argue that, as housing associations develop and grow, they can and should work to build up reserves sufficient to enable them to carry some, and in the long run most, of the risks associated with their projects. Therefore, it is common ground that a handful of large housing associations can hear the risk for many projects. For medium-sized associations, risks can often be shared on a percentage basis—as, I understand, the Government envisage.
However, it is crucial that the Government accept that the shared risk system is not appropriate for small or developing housing associations—especially, for example, the ethnic minority associations, whose risk must be 100 per cent. borne by the Housing Corporation as the agency of central Government. In the interests of housing association tenants, most of whom are on low incomes, housing associations must be sufficiently large and well established before dependence on reserves is reasonable.
6.45 pm
I wish now to deal with what is, in some senses, a technical point, but which for the Government is a fundamental point. The minister argued in Committee—as he did in a letter to Richard Best, the director of the National Federation of Housing Associations—that public expenditure consideration controls the way in which financing is organised. It is because of a public sector accounting convention that private loan finance is counted as public expenditure if the Government guarantee to cover loss, the logic being that, if the project went wrong, the public sector would have to bear the whole cost. However, there is no overwhelming case why that convention—and it is only a convention—should

always apply when a state agency provides some additional subsidy to cover a cost overrun on a project that makes substantial use of private finance.
If the Government were so minded, the convention could be changed—and it should be changed. Even if the Treasury insisted that it should not be changed, there are other possibilities. For example, the Government, without contributing funds directly, could establish a mutual insurance fund for housing associations and other social landlords, whereby premiums were paid to a private fund that would bear the risks. The whole cost of projects would not then have to count as public expenditure. Housing associations could be required by law to pay premiums to such a fund and the Housing Corporation could take those premiums into account when allocating grant.
There is no fundamental reason of public sector accountancy or expenditure why the Government should not share the risk by, for example, limiting the rents. A maximum limit on rents that ensured that social housing homes continued to be affordable for those for whom they were traditionally provided is essential if tenants are not to hear undue risks and become liable to be priced out of the market.
When the Minister last week made what may become known as the famous Warrington speech, he said:
On the principles of rent setting, rents must remain within the reach of those in lower paid employment.
Such people are not covered by housing benefit. Their rents will not be paid by the increases in housing benefit, if we really believe that there will be increases—and some of us are sceptical about that. Those people are working, and for many of them the reality will be that, unless there are affordable rents, rents will rise and they will be priced out of the market.
We began a debate in Committee on how affordable rents should be calculated. I want to deal with one of the objections raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) to my arguments. I accept that the present system of fair rents is increasingly widely discredited. It is widely agreed that the way in which rents are set under the fair rent system is shrouded in mystery. The only major study on that is a book, part of which I have read, entitled "Public Control of Privately Rented Housing" by Doling and Davies, which found the system flawed in many ways and inconsistent over time and between different parts of the country. I do not argue that we should retain that system. There should be a more rational system of rent regulation for all lettings in the social rented sector. I advocate that maximum rent levels should be based principally on a measure of average income. Income would be the principal variable, although one could accept other variables, including capital values and maintenance costs.
There is one crucial reason for using a measure of income as the main basis for affordable rents. Under such a system, one would have a guarantee that, where housing costs in a market were very high—for example, in central London, but also in towns and cities elsewhere in the country and, most importantly, in the south—there would still be housing provision for the low-paid service workers who every city and rural area needs. Needless to say, a capital city suffers most severely from this problem. I represent a London constituency and therefore know that area best, but the problem applies equally to the Minister's city, Bristol, and to other towns and cities in England and Wales.
The danger is that market rents would mean that whole areas of a town or city would become no-go areas in housing terms for workers in many occupations. Shortages will become worse, particularly in respect of primary school teachers, transport workers, nurses and other health workers, caterers, local government workers and social workers. In some places, some of those services are already close to breakdown. The effect of the shortage of nurses, which is acute in London, but apparent elsewhere in the country, has been widely publicised.
The Minister and his colleagues will have seen an academic study prepared by University college London and supported by the Confederation of British Industry, which made it clear that the problem of access to rented housing in London is now increasingly severe for both employers and employees. The Campaign for Homes in Central London, which sponsored that study, supported by hon. Members of all parties, made it clear that the nation cannot afford to fail to address that problem.
A regime of maximum rents based on incomes—not all incomes, but incomes in a group of occupations—would have the fundamentally important advantage that, even where house price inflation was rampant, as it is widely now, homes could still be provided for people who need them at rents that they could afford. That is the basic argument behind the amendments and the new clause. We do not make a special case for London, but we are most acutely aware in London of the need for such a regime.
The amendments on the one hand, and the new clause on the other, set out alternative approaches, although the same principle lies behind them. I prefer new clause 38 which, by taking a measure of average net earnings already available in official statistics as its basis, is perhaps simpler and less susceptible to charges of favouring some groups and not others than the approach contained in amendments Nos. 377 and 378 which refer to a number of selected occupations.
I wish to allude here specifically to the points raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire. He quite rightly expressed concern for people on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners. There was a flaw in the argument in favour of average income, as people on fixed incomes are not affected by that. The proposal in new clause 38, based on statistics commonly available region by region and on the average earnings of a group of low-paid workers, meets the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to consider the proposal sympathetically and acknowledge that, after testing, it is a more credible way of meeting those concerns.
I wish to make a number of points in respect of new clause 38. First, it covers housing associations and housing acquired, under part IV of the Bill, by new landlords from local councils, along with those people who are at present council tenants. It is also deliberately designed to include local authority housing. There is no argument of principle why local authority housing, which is definitely social housing, should be exempt from provisions governing rents.
Secondly, overall average imcomes should not be taken as a basis for affordable rents. In areas such as central London, the average income may be very high, but the people at the bottom of the income scale would be unable

to afford such prices. I have taken the wage levels of manual workers as a useful way forward, as the figures are easily available from the new earnings survey.
Thirdly, the precedent for subsection (3) of the new clause is regulation 29 under the Social Security Act 1986, which relates to the new housing benefit regime. It takes net income rather than gross income as the basis for housing benefit calculations, and the wording is taken as closely as possible from the regulation. That wording was passed by a Conservative Government and therefore should be acceptable to them.
Fourthly, the percentage of average manual earnings, region by region, that we have selected, is generally agreed by those people in the housing association movement who have considered the subject in detail as a suitable figure for a maximum rent. In Committee, I mentioned 18 to 20 per cent., but, having considered more closely the rent levels that arise from using variable groups of occupations and measures of income, I agree that 20 per cent, is acceptable. The regime established by the new clause would give an average national maximum rent of about £25 to start with. It provides for regional variations that would take account of regional wage variations. That may not be exactly the right figure, and I accept that there might be slight variations, but there must be a guarantee that rents are affordable; and the new clause shows that it is possible to legislate for such a guarantee for all social housing tenants.
Amendments Nos. 377 and 378 have been proposed by the Campaign for Homes in Central London. That organisation, which suggests an index of selected low-wage occupations as the basis for maximum rent levels, has existed for several years. It is a federation of groups representing communities in Battersea, Covent Garden, Fitzrovia, Hammersmith, Paddington, Pimlico, north Southwark, Somers Town, Spitalfields, Thornhill, Waterloo and the Docklands. Communities have survived in those areas while the land around them has been developed and made them increasingly expensive places in which to live. There are two interesting examples that might make the Government think more clearly about this matter. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this point because a great deal more than this debate may turn on it.
In Southwark, as elsewhere, housing association rents already appear to be in line with Government guidelines on affordability. The average Southwark unfurnished rent registered by the rent officer in the first half of last year was £19·83 and, for furnished property, £32·44. The Minister will know that the Southwark housing association group has written to him in strong terms making it clear that the proposed legislation will not address the pressing needs of the people of Southwark for an increase in the supply of affordable rented housing, let alone the essential repair of the public housing stock.
A borough that the Government might look at even more urgently is perhaps the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea where there is a high proportion of rented accommodation. Owner-occupation is only 28·8 per cent. in the Kensington constituency. Local authority property accounts for only 34·3 per cent. About 37 per cent. of people in Kensington live in other rented accommodation; 11·5 per cent. have no bath; 8·5 per cent. are overcrowded; 13·5 per cent. of the population are unemployed and over 15 per cent. are pensioners. The Minister will have seen letters from the Kensington and Chelsea Housing Association Group, which has written to him, to the hon.


Member for Hammersmith and to me, which make clear its concern that in just such a constituency and borough the Government's proposals will mean substantially higher rents, which many in the community will not be able to afford.
7 pm
I could, but I will not, read out representations from the Church housing association, a perfectly reasonable and respectable body; from the Family housing association; and, much more tellingly, recent evidence, about which the Minister will have read, from the Community housing association of NW1. Before I come to that evidence, which shows a major flaw in the Bill, I should like to ask the Minister of State a question raised by one of my constituents who chairs the Tower Hamlets housing associations group and who works for the Victoria Park housing association.
The questions asked by that constituent are questions that all such groups want to ask. What is an affordable rent in inner London? How is it calculated? How does it relate to ability to pay, and to the type and size of accommodation? What evidence does the Minister have that mixed funding schemes for 75 per cent. housing association grant will produce affordable rented housing in inner London? Will the Minister, as a matter of the utmost urgency, instruct his civil servants to allow special and general consents, because the only way in which housing associations can acquire the properties they need is if they can buy them at less than market value?
I am just about to table some questions on how long it takes to get answers to requests for specific and general consents, which will now have to go through the Department of the Environment where they appear either to get lost or to be delayed, in many ways, unconscionably.
The Family Housing Association and the south east area tenants panel makes the point that it is no good thinking that housing benefit will come to the rescue because not only are further cuts planned, but many tenants on housing benefit now have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates and will have to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax.
Perhaps the most interesting example is that given by the Community housing association of NW1, relating to a fair rent set by the rent officer in Camden of £105 per week for a housing association property in Bloomsbury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ridiculous".] Yes, as hon. Members say, that is ridiculous. However, it gets more ridiculous, because the top level that the Government permit for housing benefit in Camden is £88 per week; so already the registered fair rents, which will be lower than any rents that will come out of these proposals, are nearly £20 per week more than the maximum that tenants can get back through housing benefit.
The article from Housing Associations Weekly of 10 June is short but telling. It states:
Community HA, which owns the 3-bedroom maisonette in Bloomsbury Street, WC1"—
I think that is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and I apologise for not alerting him that I would make this point, but I think that he would agree with it without any problem——

Mr. Soley: Yes, he would.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, his Front-Bench colleague says that he would agree.
The article continues:
is making representations to the Department of the Environment about the high levels for fair rent being set in Camden. Chief executive Mike Sweeney said: 'We've had people turning down new flats on the grounds of affordability.' The association works almost exclusively in Camden and Westminster.
Housing association tenants, to whom the housing benefit stop levels do not apply, can afford to live in properties such as these if they are unemployed. But there is a major disincentive…to return to work when the rent is so high. Using the Federation's benchmark—that a tenant should not have to pay more than 20 per cent. of his or her disposable income in rent—any tenant moving into the Bloomsbury maisonette would have to return to work on a salary of £24,000 to not lose out.
The situation faced by community housing associations in central London, as house prices rise to unprecedented levels, is becoming more common.
Many more examples could be given. The rent officer service has been quoted as saying that in future affordable rents for assured tenancies will be used as comparators to fix fair rents for housing association secured tenants. The Community Housing Association states:
Within two years of deregulation of rents it is not mere speculation to predict a massive increase in rent levels which will cause inflation to soar.
That is happening against a background of regular cuts in housing benefit, the latest of which was effective from April. A pensioner couple came to see me because their rent doubled last week from £16 to £32 as a result of housing benefit changes and rent increases. Research by New Islington and Hackney Housing Association demonstrates that housing association rent levels are already at the limit of affordability and that single people will be paying a significantly higher proportion of their income in rent, after allowing for housing benefit.
On the same day that we are having this debate, it is galling to read an article in one of our national daily newspapers that in the new parliamentary year there may be substantial changes to take away from local authorities their duty to house the homeless, who will be increasing in number as a result of a combination of these provisions. The single homeless were the subject of a report produced last week which showed that they, too, would like to work but that they could not find any accommodation. They come to London from the north, Scotland, Ireland, the midlands and, increasingly, from the home counties because they believe that there are jobs here, but they end up on the streets, subject to gambling, alcohol or abuse of one kind or another. They want to work. They do not want to be part of the dependency culture. Hon. Members of all parties expressed their concern about that, as I did, in the Centrepoint report which was produced only last week.
I hope that the Minister will consider the serious proposals contained in the amendments and the new clause, because I do not believe that there is a responsible alternative way forward that does not accept that rents have to be held down.
I should like to make two substantive points before I conclude. First, I suppose it would be fair to concede that there could be a third way in which one could achieve affordable rents. The Government might find it more appealing, so I do not want to rule it out and I am being generous in suggesting it. I hope that we can come out of


the debate with an agreement that the Government will change their mind, although, as yet, there has been nothing to give ground for great hope.
Maximum rents could be set deliberately somewhat higher than the rent levels that the Government think should operate and on the basis of which the Housing Corporation calculates the level of housing association grant. That would permit social landlords to raise rents in the event of shortfalls, but not beyond an explicitly laid down maximum. There could also be a requirement to reduce rents to the original levels within a period judged adequate to enable the housing association to balance its books after receipt of additional housing association grant where that was a legitimate way forward.
Secondly, in Committee the Minister deployed the following argument against affordable rents:
I do not want to import a rent control mechanism because the private sector will then ask what kind of market it is, and if costs rise more than was predicted when the original package was agreed, what freedom does the housing association to which it is lending have if it is forced to raise rents to pay the higher costs? If it has no such freedom, the market will then ask if the Government are to guarantee any deficit. If they were to do so, we would be back to a full public sector system with Treasury control over provision and the rest, and we would still have not performed the trick. Under neither a Conservative nor a Labour Government would such a guaranteed deficit system be other than at the heart of the public sector, so we should not have gained the freedom which we need.
If, on the other hand, the Government were not able to pay the deficit, the market would say that it was a horrible, politicised market in which rents were controlled and that if they got the sums wrong the Government would not pay the deficit. The market would not invest in that any more than it would in the fair rent system now, and for the same reasons. … much the best way for those rents to be negotiated is project by project, depending on who the client group is, on the area and on the costs. If we try to set an overall rent figure we shall make it either too lax or too tight.
These are the questions, having got to the Minister on his defensive argument.
First, given that private money is already coming into social housing, why does he set so much store by the advice that he has received that the private sector will not be interested if, as now, there is any continuing form of rent limitation? In Committee, he said:
the importation of a statutory rent control will scare people off and make them say that there is a wholly politicised market again."—[Official Report, Standing CommitteeG, 9 February 1988; c. 745–46.]
He also said that if the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) were the Minister, he, like any Minister, could increase grants to housing associations to keep rents down. As I said before, that would be equally politicised; it would be Government intervention to help provide the housing that is needed in the market.
Publicly subsidised social housing will always be politicised, as it should be, because that is how Governments, by definition political, seek to assist with solutions to a political problem—how to house people given the money that they have got to pay. There is nothing more or less politicised about ensuring that rents are affordable by limiting them than by controlling them out of a grant that the owners of the property get. That is not the issue. The issue, if rents have to go up, is: who should bear the risk? It is clear that it should not be the most vulnerable prospective and actual tenants.

If the Government are saying that they are going to opt out of politicising this issue, presumably they are saying that they are going to walk away from the responsibility to provide housing at affordable rents. Our case, and what the amendments and the new clause make abundantly clear, is that it would be perfectly possible for the Government to legislate for affordable rents if they believed that rents should continue to be affordable by tenants of the kind that housing associations and the like have traditionally housed.
The Government say that that is their objective. In Housing Associations Weekly for March we see the headline "Rent objectives the same, says Waldegrave."
In last week's press release that accompanied—I cite it, again—the famous Warrington speech, the Minister referred to the need to provide rents at an affordable level for those who need them, and the Government have tabled their own new clause, new clause 30, which refers to this issue.
The reason for the great concern outside the House —whether in the national or the specialist press, and specifically among increasing numbers of our constituents in England and Wales—is that there is nothing to back up the Minister's words and to prove that he will do what he says. In the consultation paper "Finance for Housing Associations", published last September, the Government said that the aim would be to ensure that housing associations can
let at sensible rents that are attuned to the means of their prospective tenants.
It sounds good, but from that day to this we have had no definition of the interchangeable words—the Minister admitted that they were interchangeable—"sensible rents" and "affordable rents." We have had no substance at all to back up the words. The amendments seek to write in that there will be rents at affordable levels. For the sake of the one third of our population who are tenants, or likely to be tenants, the Government must move towards a
7.15 pm
Is it not right that at the end of the day it should not be the tenant, particularly the vulnerable tenant, who should have to bear the financial risks of the agency providing the housing? Is it not right that the housing association movement, which the Minister praises and wants to see expand, should continue to be able to provide housing at rents that tenants of the kind that it has traditionally housed can continue to afford? They have been proved to be people on lower average incomes than either private rented sector or council housing sector tenants.
If the answer to those questions is, "Yes, that is right," the Government should be prepared to tell the House tonight that they will legislate for a system of regulation for genuinely affordable rents. Our fear is that they do not agree with these propositions, but agree that, as rents go up, tenants will have to bear the cost. The consequence of the legislation is obviously, as the Government have said, that rents will go up. They will mean that housing associations, social housing and the poorer people in Britain will yet again suffer from the Government's bringing the market place into the home.
The Government have a bad enough record in creating two nations, in putting people on the streets instead of in homes and in meeting the needs of the most needy. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is an


opportunity for Ministers to show that they understand that they cannot go on like this is our society and that all people need housing at costs that they can afford.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The House is greatly obliged to those groups that have advised the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He has presented their and his view, which will be widely shared in the House; a view that is not merely based on the commitment to justice, which needs to be restated in the housing field, but also reflects anxiety about the future.
A few months ago I was driven around New York to look at the housing conditions in that city. They are worse than anything that we have, but if the Government do not begin to understand that the needs of the most vulnerable section of the community, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred, have to be met and cannot be met by the individuals and groups themselves or on the basis of existing central priorities, the condition of our people, of the national housing stock, of our inner cities and perhaps of towns outside the traditional inner-city areas will be increasingly serious.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to cases within London. Some of my hon. Friends and I have grave and growing anxieties about these matters because in recent years the Government have required British Coal to sell off housing estates, which have often been bought by London property companies, speculators who will be seeking a level of return from their housing operations in the provinces of the kind that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, they can obtain in parts of central London.
For that reason and a number of others that I shall refer to later, I am very sympathetic to amendments Nos. 377 and 378. I can think of a number of reasons in addition to those directly concerned with housing to justify the House in approving amendment No. 378. I should dearly like to see a regional index of workers engaged in essential industries. I would love to be able to compare the wages of workers engaged in essential industries and services in my own constituency with those of persons engaged in exactly the same industries and services in, say, south-east England. I think that we would find a difference of £80 or £90 a week, and things are, of course, getting worse as the gaps between the richer and the poorer areas widen.

Mr. Martin Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the north, housing was kept reasonably cheap specifically to retain workers in slum housing conditions. Down south, the city slickers who seemed to make a bomb out of the bang that occurred recently have perks that enable them to afford enormous houses. We must not forget that there are still many poor people in the south. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should consider the needs of the poor rather than the greedy people?

Mr. Hardy: I have not burdened the House with frequent involvement in debates on housing for quite a few years, although in the first part of my parliamentary career often spoke in housing debates, largely because I had relevant experience in a local authority in south Yorkshire, although not at the level of leadership and seniority which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has attained. I believed that local authority housing, and housing in the rented sector, was being dealt with properly in areas like mine. In my former urban

district, obliterated by a previous Conservative Government's obsessive desire to interfere with local authorities, we had established sound and sensible housing policies which did not require massive subsidies. When I entered the House in 1970, my local authority was building three-bedroom, Parker Morris standard housing, without any subsidy from the rates, which were rented at £4.7s.6d.
In the area that I represent, sensible and experienced local authorities have a much better grasp and a sounder approach to the problem than the Government. They could provide a more effective solution than anything which has emanated from the Government since 1979, when we were in sight of resolving a housing problem which has since become much worse.
I remember saying in a housing debate in the House in 1978 that, if my local authority was allowed to maintain its housing policy for not more than one and a half years, the housing problem in my constituency would be completely resolved. It was diminishing rapidly. Since the Conservative Government started to apply their policies and to operate their dogma, in my area, as in every other part of the country, the position has become much worse.
I want to warn the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about new clause 38, which is being considered with the two amendments to which he has referred. The hon. Gentlemen seemed to be taking a more kindly and optimistic view of the Government's attitude to the amendments than some of my hon. Friends might take. In new clause 38, the hon. Gentleman may be giving the Government a new instrument of dogmatic oppression. I can see a real temptation for some of the market-oriented Conservative Members to decide that the first nine lines of the new clause are attractive but that the rest should be removed.
If the Government accept the new clause, the sort of people who now attend in the other place may turn up and take out everything after the ninth line. Then the word "affordable" would no longer be relevant. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, who is as deeply committed as we are to establishing the principle of an affordable rent, has put the phrase "affordable rent" at the end of the new clause, where it may be more easily butchered by the people who are less concerned about the vulnerable sections of the community.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not pretend that the drafting is perfect. It was chosen for two reasons. The first is that it follows Government precedent, which may make it more appealing. The second reason is that I am advised—and I think it is right—that there should be a definition, which is provided in subsection (2) where there is a reference to
20 per cent. of the average net earnings of manual employees".
The case which is made strongly is that, if the Government do not take heed now of that fundamental point, they may have difficulty in resisting in the other place. I understand that there is considerable sympathy in the other place for housing associations and the social housing movement and for the concept that rents must be limited.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman may be being excessively charitable. He mentions that in the other place there may be sympathy with the housing associations, but that, of course, is among those noble Lords who attend regularly. I am not worried about the noble Lords who attend regularly but about the ones who come down only rarely. They are likely to vote for different things than the


housing associations to which the hon. Gentleman is attached. If the ruthlessness that I fear is displayed in the other place, the
maximum rent for the region in which the dwelling house is located, to be determined by the Secretary of State
may lead to an extension and a compounding of the weaknesses of the fair rent system to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I recall that, about five years ago, I decided to advise a constituent under no circumstances to appeal to the rent tribunal. I have given that advice consistently, because I found that, when constituents appealed against a fair rent registered by the rent officer, in all probability the tribunal fixed a higher rent. So that recourse to what was supposed to be an instrument of justice was not of benefit or value. It merely created a great deal of stress among people who were subject to a vicious and distressing increase in rent.
At the time I made the decision to give such advice to my constituents, I thought it would also be fair to suggest to the Minister that a new approach be adopted to the manning of tribunals. When one examined the composition of rent tribunals, one found that there was excessive influence from those who had a professional and commercial interest in securing higher rents and higher property prices. It seemed absurd, for example, that an estate agent's wife should be on a rent tribunal when her family's income was always improved if rents or property prices increased, because that income depended on the value of the property or the rent with which the tribunal was dealing. In Yorkshire, we found that solicitors engaged in conveyancing and such activities, estate agents or close relatives of those people had more influence on rent tribunals than ordinary people who should have been better represented.
I can see a real risk of the Government accepting new clause 38, knowing that their keenest and cruellest supporters in the other place will be eager to remove everything after the ninth line, so taking out the commitment to the affordable rent which has inspired the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. The Government could take a more generous view. They could accept new clause 38 and offer an absolute commitment that they will do their utmost to ensure that those who generally support them will not be encouraged to change the new clause or remove from it anything of value.

Mr. Redmond: Call in the backwoodsmen.

Mr. Hardy: Loyalty in the Conservative party is such that if the backwoodsmen came down and were properly guided by those who influence the other place, they might be persuaded not to do so. But for the new clause, we would need a very firm commitment that the guidance would be clear and positive, so that there is no confusion.
7.30 pm
The Government could afford to take that view. After all, as recent statistical analysis has shown, in the last Budget the Government could afford to give £1·9 billion to the richest 1 per cent. of the country, which is twice as much as they gave the poorest half of the population. It is among the poorest half of the population—and it may be

as high as one half—that the vulnerability exists to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred.
The Government may imagine that only 1 or 2 per cent. of the population are vulnerable, but not any more—certainly not in areas such as that which I represent, where the real rate of unemployment may be 40 per cent. Nor is it true in areas such as the Dearne valley in south Yorkshire, whose economy has been devastated and where a huge proportion of the population is dependent on the state.
When I recently asked the Prime Minister about unemployment in that area, I was told that it was falling —but that is not the case. When I wrote to her the other day asking her to ensure that certain steps are taken to give my area some capacity and cause for pride, she replied —my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and for Don Valley have seen the letter—that the Government's commitment to my area is so great that they are keeping 17,500 of our young people on training schemes; that was a measure of the sustenance and support that the Government are engendering. How many of those 17,500 young people, who will probably never be able to buy a house, will be placed in future at the mercy of the Rachmans that we have seen creeping into south Yorkshire?
If the Government have any sense of obligation to the nation as a whole, they will ensure that the new clause and the two amendments, together with the principle of affordability, are enshrined in the Bill. It may be even more appropriate for the Government just to return to the situation of a few years ago and consider those local authorities which were able to provide decent housing efficiently, effectively and fairly, and who were in sight of a resolution to their housing problems—until the Government changed the whole emphasis and basis of their approach. The situation has now been reached in which business enterprise tax fiddling is given a higher priority than decent financial management of local authority housing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's comments about south Yorkshire. It is also somewhat galling for my constituents, 95 per cent. of whom rent social housing and 25 per cent. of whom are unemployed, to look across the river—and sometimes not even that far—to see properties changing hands at £2·5 million. They know too that the bulk of property built since 1979 has been not homes for rent but second homes for those who are already adequately housed, in this country or abroad. That is the situation in our capital city, and not only in the deprived and neglected regions in the north of Britain and elsewhere. That is the situation within a mile or two of the heart of our nation.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman emphasises a point that I made earlier, when I referred to my visit to New York to see conditions there. The gap between the rich and the poor in New York may be wider than it is here, but that may change as the months go by, as the sort of arrangements introduced in the Budget are continued. That gap is one cause of the unease, disorder and social problems which are increasingly assailing our urban areas. Housing conditions and rent levels lie close to the heart of


those problems. The House is right to devote substantial time to the subject this evening and must continue to do so until the Government adopt a more sensible approach.
I referred also to the recent sale of Coal Board houses to companies outside the mining communities. I am extremely fearful of the Bill's effects, and the amendments are relevant to the circumstances I have described. We must ensure that the people living in those houses do not face escalating rent levels, especially at the same time as they are affected by reductions in housing benefit and social services. As the Government have compelled those houses to be sold and must take every ounce of responsibility in that matter, they should accept that the burdens faced by areas such as mine are now acute enough to lead them to view the amendments with greater sympathy.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend referred to the sale of British Coal houses to financial companies and speculators in London. Perhaps he will remind the House what measures the Government took to stop the exploitation of British Coal tenants and to protect them and to protect the future housing stock for their children.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to go down that road of questioning.

Mr. Hardy: I would not dream of doing so. My hon. Friend's concern is very genuine, but it would not be entirely appropriate for me to go down that road except to say that, as the Government created the problem and have increased anxieties to the present level, amendment No. 377 should certainly apply in areas such as ours. The only difficulty is that amendment No. 387 gives rise to some conjecture, anxiety and even astonishment.
In parts of the Yorkshire coalfield, the average net weekly earnings may not be easily obtained, as the majority there may not be employed full time. Some people are working only one and a half days a week, so that their employers may avoid the costs which they would otherwise incur in respect of full-time or substantially part-time employees. I called into a job centre in Rotherham recently and saw that the situation has not changed. One job was advertised at the rate of £1·50 per hour, but for only a very small number of hours. That was done so that the employer would not have to pay a national insurance contribution and could treat that employee as a casual worker. That situation is growing as each month passes.
How can we establish a proper register? I accept that from a statistical and sociological point of view a proper register should be established. However, I wonder whether that can be done reliably in areas of high unemployment. We all know that the Government's assessments and analyses are often grossly inaccurate, and such inaccuracies might disadvantage the areas of highest unemployment. Although I recognise that such a disadvantage exists, there is sufficient merit in amendment No. 378 to provide grounds for our approval. It refers to a guide, although I hope that no Minister, understanding —if they do—what they have done, would claim that the guide was accurate.
A few moments ago I mentioned the Budget and the changes in the use of business enterprise schemes to extend private sector housing entirely as a cost to the taxpayer. I suppose that some schemes have got off the ground

already, probably in areas close to that represented by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who may be able to refer to some of them before the debate is over. If the Government can give such a priority and allow an enormous part of the investment in private sector housing to be set against tax, they cannot say that the nation does not have the resources to provide the material support that would be required by amendments Nos. 377 and 378 and new clause 38.
It is no good the Government saying that there would be cost burdens. There may be, but if the Government can allow taxes to be reduced in order to sustain the astonishingly generous schemes available under the business enterprise scheme for rented sector housing, they cannot say that they lack the resources to assist here. If they are to rely increasingly on private sector housing, they will have to make the rewards generous, because the entrepreneurs to whom the Government are committed are so trained and accustomed to go for an early yield, a quick killing and a high profit, rather than for long-term investment, that unless they get the quick killing, high return and substantial growth in capital, they will not play. The Government should understand that they will not play unless their greed is fed. Why on earth should the vulnerable half—perhaps more than half—of Britain's population be plunged into difficulty, enormous anxiety and great financial stress to assist a small proportion of landlords? I doubt whether, in a democracy, anyone would see such a situation again.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey touched upon the problem, but I do not think that he perceived the scale of the problem that will now unfold. A few moments ago, he referred to the enormous increase in housing costs. He referred to relatively small houses across the river being sold for millions of pounds. What the hon. Gentleman and some of the people engaged in the worthy groups to which he referred may not have perceived is that the effect of that massive explosion in house prices has not yet been reflected in the rents that apply in parts of London. Houses have been going up in price, sometimes by thousands of pounds as each week passes, and one shudders to think what the rent levels will be in a little while.
Earlier today—it is a pure coincidence that I had this experience—I travelled on the train from Brighton, where I had been addressing the local government conference on the privatisation of the electricity industry—another example of commitment to greed. I could not help overhearing the conversation of a young couple on the train. One said, "My father has been very good to us. He bought my husband and me a house last year and he has let us have it at the price that he paid for it." The lady to whom that person was talking gasped with astonishment and said, "You are very lucky. Your father is a very generous man." She was astounded that the girl's father had let his daughter have the house for the price that he had paid for it the year before. He is obviously a supporter of the Labour movement, or at least espouses the values to which we are attached. He certainly is not a Conservative, or he would not have dreamed of acting in that way. That shows how enormously generous someone can be considered simply because he is prepared to sell a house this year for the price he paid for it last year.

Mr. Soley: One of the quickest ways of becoming rich in the Prime Minister's enterprise Britain is to have bought a house about five or six years ago and a barrel of beer or a crate of wine, and to have drunk oneself to perdition, making about £70 a day in doing so.

Mr. Hardy: Yes, that is an entirely appropriate example. Conservatives would probably regard such a person as patriotic because they believe in indirect taxation. They would probably suggest that he went out and bought two barrels.
The scale of capital appreciation is vast. I was seeking to make the point that the capital appreciation of recent months has not yet fed through into the rented sector and will exacerbate the problem dramatically.
I had not planned to make a long speech, because my main anxiety was keenly to warn the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the Government might take new clause 38 on board. We need to extract from the Minister a promise that, if the Government do that, they will retain it in its entirety rather than chopping it off at the ninth line, bringing the Liberal party into even more disrepute than it is in already. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman. We are still a long way from a general election and, if he serves a decent cause, we are entitled to support him. On the other hand, he should understand what he is doing. Unless he insists on proper safeguards from the Minister, he may well have put a tool of oppression, cruelty and unfairness into the Minister's hands.
The Minister enjoys a reasonable reputation on conservation matters. He and I share a profound interest in that. The hon. Gentleman made appropriate noises and went a good way along the conservation road in a direction of which the House should approve. But the fact remains that he will not be doing his reputation any good if he shows himself more sympathetic to Britain's flora and fauna, to which he was, and I believe still is, greatly attached—a sympathy that I endorse enthusiastically—than to half Britain's human race. He will not be assisting his career as much as some of us would like, especially as he is not regarded as one of the more unpleasant Rachmans on the Conservative Benches, and there are plenty of them. If there were not, we would not have the Bill.
Just as I suggested that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey might be the Government's tool, so the Minister might be the instrument for further unwisdom. To create the sort of society that Conservative Members seem set on creating inevitably means the creation of enormous social problems. It means that young people will leave my constituency and those of my hon. Friends to find employment because they want to work and they cannot find any economic opportunity close to their homes.
Earlier this year, in an Adjournment debate, I spoke about the abuse of young ladies from my constituency and similar areas, who come to London to take up domestic service because there are no employment opportunities for them at home. Such young people may sooner or later wish to live here. They cannot bring with them the capital resources to obtain a decent home, so they will be at the mercy of the BES Rachmans, or the housing associations will be placed under enormous pressure to increase the

yield from their rent income—market rents fixed by people who have every possible incentive to see that those rents are as high as possible.
We are already in a jungle. I suggest that the Minister takes careful note of the amendments. If he has any capacity or freedom to do so, he should accept them, and, in doing so, make sure that the Government understand that they are committed to maintaining the principle of affordability, that they are committed to assisting the vulnerable and that they perceive that vulnerability in our society now embraces a majority of the population.

Mr. Kevin Barron: First, let me deal with one or two comments made by the previous two speakers. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) both decried the present system of fair rents. While tribunals may be more likely to put rents up than to lower them when they have been set by the rent assessment officer, at least that system provides something that another part of the Bill will evidently remove—the right of appeal by either the tenant or the owner of a property. The decision of the appeal tribunal is of course binding on both parties. I do not believe that the changed situation will be very healthy for many of my constituents who have been driven by their circumstances to live in privately rented homes rather than owning their own property.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth mentioned house price inflation. It seems strange to me—and to many other hon. Members—that although the Government are always talking about the absence of inflation, house price inflation is considerable. In my constituency the average annual rate of house inflation is well over 15 per cent. I recently had the good fortune to visit East Anglia to speak about the poll tax. Figures announced about six weeks ago showed that the figures over the past quarter reflected an annual increase of some 40 per cent. in the area.
There is no doubt in most people's minds that there will be a dramatic effect on those in the private sector if they are deprived of the rent protection afforded by the current legislation. We can only speculate on the effect on the generations of young people now either at school or just beginning their working career—if, indeed, they are lucky enough to be working—who may not be able to buy a home and settle down. If the Rent Acts are repealed or amended, they may be forced to rent in the private sector.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that if the Minister could not accept amendments Nos. 377 or 378—I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said: the compiling of a register will involve problems in certain areas, and we are discussing an area problem—he should consider accepting new clause 38. The new clause would help to achieve an affordable rent specific to a region rather than to individual households. It would be much fairer if decisions about the approximate level were made in consultation with another Government Department.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should not despair. The National Federation of Housing Associations suggests that when the Bill has gone through all its stages—and stages seem to have been added each day over the past two or three months——

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Government do not know what they are doing.

Mr. Barron: I must say that, judging by the number of informed decisions so far, that seems to be true. If we could listen again to what was being said six months ago about what the Government envisaged, we would certainly say that they did not know what they were doing, because so much has been added on Report. The part that we are debating now, however, has been in the Bill for some time.
The evidence of the National Federation of Housing Associations has plainly fallen on deaf ears. I should like to go into some detail about what the federation has said about affordable rents, because it makes sensible reading. Given its arguments, I should have thought that the Government would want to introduce the concept. The federation says:
The concept of an affordable rent applicable to housing association tenants would not necessarily involve an individual assessment.
While we have said that we must look at incomes, certainly on a regional level, and perhaps more locally than that, the procedure of individual assessment would be a long-drawn-out one. We must also bear in mind, however, that many people living with "social landlords", whether they are housing association or local authority tenants, are assessed on their ability to pay rent through the housing benefit mechanism—although the Government have changed it considerably over the past two months. There is no doubt that individual assessments must be made in that context.
An affordable rent need not be a rigid ceiling. Obviously it would have to change from region to region if the decision was made on the basis of income. It would mean that the Secretary of State would have to place limits on rents for different projects in different areas, which in some instances would be below the open-market rent level. Some rents would be higher than fair rents, but the limits would ensure that the housing associations could continue to meet the needs that they currently serve.
We should take on board what the federation has said, and also what seems to make good common sense. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about the inner cities. It is true that a far higher percentage of homes are rented, in either the public or the private sector, in his constituency than in mine, but my constituency is not without such problems in parts, normally affecting old people living in accommodation provided through housing associations with the support of the local authority. The hon. Gentleman gave a vivid description of a 62-year-old person who, after nine years of living rough in London, was provided with a home over his head that was not made of cardboard or, presumably, canvas. In such circumstances it would obviously be wrong to base an assessment on anything near the average income.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I give the hon. Gentleman a figure that I did not put in my speech? It is interesting to note that, among the poorest groups of tenants, of all those in housing association property, 75 per cent. need housing benefit, compared with 60 per cent. of council tenants and 50 per cent. of private tenants. We are talking about the most vulnerable among those who are housed at all, the great majority of whom need additional help to meet their present rent levels, let alone those that will be imposed in future.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentlaman has made a very good point. I hope that before we conclude this debate the

Government will ensure that people in the housing associations concerned with that level of take-up of housing benefit are satisfied that the Bill will not make matters worse. We hope that some words of comfort will be provided by the Minister when he replies to the debate.
The National Federation of Housing Associations believes that there are many advantages in limiting rents to meet the specific market needs of different types of people living in different types of accommodation. Tenants would have greater security knowing that the next rent increase would not raise rents far beyond the level that they could afford. That is very important for many people who are at the lower end of our society who have not made it in the City or elsewhere in the so-called enterprise culture which the Government claim to have created over the past eight years.
8 pm
The victims of the enterprise culture are now living in poverty in greater numbers than was the case eight or nine years ago. It is important that we protect those people and tell them with some confidence that it is highly unlikely that in years to come, given that their incomes are likely to be close to or remain at the present level, they will be priced out of the homes that they are renting at the moment. Those people feel very vulnerable because of their level of income. Many families also feel vulnerable, and it would be nothing short of callous to move to a different level of rent which did not provide the protection that they require to provide them with as stable a life as possible in those circumstances.
Another advantage of limiting rents would apply to local authorities. At the moment local authorities are responsible for homeless people in their areas even if those people are moving overnight or in a short period. I do not disagree with the present legislation which makes local authorities responsible for housing people in their boroughs. In accepting that responsibility, local authorities know with some confidence, when nominating homeless families and others in similar circumstances, that housing associations will not turn people away because they cannot afford the rents.
I am sure we are all aware that there has been some conflict in the capital over the treatment of homeless families in different boroughs. I must tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that a council not too far from here which flies the hon. Gentleman's political flag does not have a good record in its treatment of homeless people and its interpretation of current legislation. However, the vast majority of local authorities recognise the problem, especially because of the cut in Government funding, which has affected the building of local authority homes for homeless people throughout Britain.
Given the current legislation and the way in which housing associations are run, the authorities know with some certainty that if they direct a homeless family to a particular housing association it is likely that the family will be able to afford the rent. If that is the case, the local authority will know that that family has been dealt with satisfactorily and that it can move on to the next family requiring accommodation.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware that there has been a phenomenal rise in homelessness recently, not just in London and the major


cities, but in rural and suburban areas and in the type of area that I represent. It is important that local authorities are able to direct people to some security.
Another advantage in limiting rents to meet specific market needs is that the Department of the Environment would know that, in return for its payment of grant, an association would always be able to target the subsidy to supply accommodation on the basis of housing need, not on the ability to pay. I am sure the Minister will agree that, no matter how the Government fund housing associations, they will not be able to ignore the plight of the housing associations, through the Housing Corporation, even if they can ignore the plight of the homeless or those who are worried about proposed increases in rents. The Government cannot ignore the fact that the funds must be found from somewhere.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey explained, many people will still need state funding from one source or another—whether that is provided in their basic income or through the Housing Corporation and a housing association—to keep a particular dwelling. The housing associations will need funding to carry out their job to house homeless people.
Another advantage of limiting rents would be that the Department of Health and Social Security would be protected with regard to housing associations. That is relevant because, according to the Bill, housing associations will come under more financial pressure. They are certainly under financial pressure at the moment. I am sure the Minister is aware of the problems in constituencies such as mine, where we have tried to attract housing associations, as they are responsible landlords, to buy houses that have been sold by public bodies such as British Coal.
The DHSS must be protected because housing associations will be under presssure to push up rents to the maximum, which the DHSS will cover through housing benefit payments. That will increase public expenditure. The Goverment may think that they are saving money in one form, but that might not be the case.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to a rent that had risen to £110 a week, far in excess of the current level of benefit payment. The private sector does not address itself to such problems. That is a classic example of the difficulty that we face, and the Government must do something now.
There may be no reason why housing association rents in some areas, perhaps in an area such as mine, should be forced up to 50 per cent. of the maximum level of benefit payable, unless the associations were trying to get the maximum amount from the state—because they are under pressure to raise funds—under the housing benefit system. In those circumstances it would be sensible to impose a limit of an affordable rent which recognises incomes on a regional, if not local basis. Such a limit would protect the DHSS. I believe that it is sensible to include an affordable rent clause in the Bill, if not in new clause 38 as envisaged by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. That would provide some protection for the public sector.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My point links directly to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The Government have argued that there might be protection under housing benefit and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that comes from

the public purse—either from DHSS or Department of the Environment moneys. The trouble is that the DHSS and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will never guarantee to continue paying housing benefit to an ever-increasing level. The best argument for affordable rents is that the system may not cost the public sector any more, and it will guarantee that people will be helped by knowing that only a certain proportion of their income would have to go on housing. That would be a much firmer guarantee than the other ways proposed, whereby the public sector would have to pick up the tab at the end of the day.

Mr. Barron: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Only a week ago there were strong rumours that housing benefit might be a thing of the past in years to come. In those circumstances, we definitely need some limit on affordable rents in this legislation.
To limit rents to meet specific market needs would also give some advantage to private investors. They would be less fearful of future Governments imposing rent controls that would jeopardise their investment. Affordable rents could be the sensible price of political consensus, which may turn out to be the essential prerequisite for long-term private investment, and it is important that such investment is long-term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth rightly highlighted the short-term gain. There has been a lot of speculation recently, particularly in housing, but also in other sectors. That is not necessarily good for private investment in housing in the long term. It may be all right for city speculators who will buy a block of flats, a house or two homes and sell them. They are not too worried about the housing market after they have offloaded their short-term property investment, but long-term private investors are worried about the cost of housing and affordable rents would provide protection for them. Such rents would ensure that the market was more stable than would otherwise be the case, so that they could plan better in the medium and long term for what they believe to be right.
Affordable rents would benefit existing tenants who need to transfer to another of the housing association's properties. That is important for families who leave their homes, perhaps to look for work and for the elderly whose families have got married, and who can therefore think of moving within the same area or community into a small purpose-built flat or bungalow owned by the same housing association. Affordable rents would give them protection if they moved, so they would not be deterred from undertaking what would be a sensible move on their part, and an economic move for the housing association, because by moving into a one-bedroomed flat and releasing a three-bedroomed family home, a local homeless family, or a homeless family who wanted to move into the locality, could move in.
It would be easy to transfer between housing association property because of the protection afforded by affordable rents. This is an eminently sensible proposal and I can see no reason why hon. Members should not want to write it into the legislation to ensure that housing associations could use their property to its full potential to help homeless families, which is what housing associations are about.

Mr. Redmond: Housing associations can help those in need. I am not sure what this proposal does or how it


affects the schemes that are implemented by local authorities which take part in the mobility scheme. In the search for jobs it is important that people can move from the north to the south, and from the south to the north. It is important that associations operate the mobility scheme to ensure that couples or people searching for jobs can find accommodation in those areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is vital if associations are to provide a service and fulfil a function?

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The National Federation of Housing Associations has not spent much time on that, but obviously it will have looked into the matter. I do not have any figures on mobility between the homes of housing associations.
A person of working age, with an income, who wants to move from one region to another would find himself or herself under some pressure if there were major discrepancies in rents because of the limits set by different markets. During this short debate we have had many examples of the effect on rents of the private sector in London. We all know people who, like me, live in a region and have to live in London, if not all the time, at least for part of the week. There is a tremendous difference in the rented sectors of areas, such as south Yorkshire and London.
The idea that without some form of protection people could transfer and that markets would set rents for housing associations scares me. In effect, there would be no mobility. An aged parent could not move nearer children or grandchildren. If a husband or wife died and the only offspring of the surviving spouse was 200 or 300 miles away, he or she would not he able to move nearer to that member of the family. Unless protection is written into the legislation, families will be kept apart, and by families I do not mean man and wife, but, for example, mother and son. They would be kept apart because of the economic disparity across Britain. That has not been assessed properly in the context of this problem.
The most vital reason why affordable rents—or some form of limit—seem eminently sensible relates to the increasing problem of rent arrears and the inevitability of homelessness if tenants are evicted. Affordable rents would be a way of avoiding rent arrears and any subsequent court action that would remove a tenant from his home. Some people may get 20 per cent. more than, or even double, the average earnings of an area. There is little that we could do to protect people who have been silly and have spent the family income and neglected the essential family responsibility of keeping a roof over the family, but where that is not the case it would be negligent of us, as a legislative body, to ignore the possibility of evictions where there is no rent limit. An affordable rents provision in the legislation seems obvious and sensible, and we should consider that in greater detail.
The federation says in its facts sheet:
In so far as affordable rents are lower than the market rents which associations might have obtained by letting to those on higher incomes, housing association projects will require more grant-aid.
We accept that that is inevitable, especially when 75 per cent. of people living in housing association homes receive some form of state benefit, be that housing benefit or anything else. We must accept that, one way or another, state money will have to be used to keep families in their

housing association homes. Such funding is no different from what we now provide for housing or other areas of the economy.
I do not wish to go into the question of regional aid and what is given to the different regional groups that assist in trying to develop regions. I have no doubt that a substantial amount is being spent in the regions. It is not enough, but that money is given to those regions because, on occasions, the Government seem to recognise that there are regional imbalances. I should know about this, because I come from one of the poorer regions. Some regions are a lot poorer than others, and in reality the Bill will change nothing. The Government will have to carry on providing such funds until such time as we can get rid of regional discrepancies. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and a number of Conservative Members, although they do not often talk about regional imbalances, believe that it is something that we should get behind us, so that people do not have to live in different forms of poverty or wealth.
The federation also states:
The global amount of government subsidy to associations is obviously limited, so if rather more is needed for each home, the total programme has to expand more slowly. But housing associations would rather grow at a modest level and continue to house those with the most severe housing needs, than expand more rapidly but fail to help the very people for whom they were founded.
That is an important factor. Earlier we discussed poverty in inner-city areas. On occasions such poverty can he found in rural areas, and pockets of need in urban areas also need attention. If we go for a quick return basis and introduce some form of market rent without protection, housing associations will be forced to charge such rents.
I am sure that even the Minister will accept that there is already great pressure on housing associations to try to self-finance by buying out or building in certain areas to help homelessness. In those circumstances, we should not divert housing associations from that work. If housing associations are obliged to follow certain projects as a means of getting more money to enable them to manage their schemes and to deal with problems elsewhere, it will mean that they will be unable to look after an entire area or undertake other necessary projects. It may be that housing associations have projects that offer a low return of income because of the nature of the income received by the people housed by that project. It would be doing a great disservice to housing associations if they were forced to make a choice between projects on the basis of received income.
I have great faith in local authority housing, and I do not like the discrimination that is shown against it, but I should not like to talk down the help that has been provided by the many good projects that have been developed by housing associations in my constituency. I am sure that there are many other right hon. and hon. Members who could say the same of their constituencies.
The federation also points out:
In the absence of the Secretary of State setting rent limits for housing association tenancies, financial pressures may compel associations into a higher rent regime. This will move some associations up-market to helping the middle income groups for whom such rents do not present a problem. And paradoxically it will drive other associations down-market, concentrating exclusively on those whose rents are paid in full by the state. But for many people in between—for example, pensioners with occupational pensions or modest capital resources, families in low-paid occupations"—
there are at present many such families—
this would create immense problems.


The people in the middle would suffer immense problems, but they would have no protection. The federation states:
Housing associations wish to concentrate on helping those people for whom market forces are not producing the answer. They want to help a mix of households; they do not see their role either as providing welfare housing entirely for the destitute, or becoming like commercial landlords charging market rents.
The federation starkly concludes:
The Bill enables Parliament to spell out the true position of housing associations as social landlords, not open-market, profit-making bodies. The twin concepts of tenants' rights enshrined in a housing association tenancy, and a ceiling on rent levels for this sector, would achieve the objectives shared by all concerned.
When the Minister replies to the debate I hope that he will have some words of encouragement for housing associations, which have worked alongside the homeless for many years. They do good work, not only in inner-city areas, but in rural areas. I hope the Minister will say that housing associations will not be forced into the position of having to leave some sections of the community behind because they are too poor. Presumably the Government would say that care for that sector falls upon the shoulders of local authorities and that they, not housing associations, are responsible for the homeless.
I hope that housing associations will not be forced to go after people with higher incomes on the basis that they represent a reasonable investment because the income received will enable then to carry on and manage particular projects. In those circumstances, it is important that some words of reassurance are given. The Minister has managed to convince his right hon. Friend about many issues relating to tenants but when we discuss later clauses we shall see how far the right hon. Gentleman has been convinced.
I hope the Minister will say that housing associations will be given some protection over affordable rents for different projects in different parts of the country. I hope he will say that housing associations will be protected, just as they protect those who are in need. The Government boast about a tenants' charter, and I hope that the Minister and his right hon. Friend will make it clear that housing association tenants will be afforded the protection that the Government say will be given to others elsewhere.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), I have great sympathy for amendments Nos. 377 and 378. I also share my hon. Friend's reservations about new clause 38 but it has my support. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister take note of that.
It is useful to quote the view of the National Federation of Housing Associations on the Bill and what it believes to be the role of housing associations:
The Housing Bill will determine the future direction of housing associations. The Bill abolishes for future tenants the current rent controls currently imposed through the rent officer service. And it removes the charter of tenants' rights currently enjoyed by housing association tenants. If the Bill is enacted without amendment, housing associations will become indistinguishable in law from profit-making private landlords.
My concern here is new clause 38(1)(b):
a person who has acquired property under Part IV of this Act".

I am concerned that much of the present local government housing stock, which is confined now to housing associations and other socially acceptable bodies, will find its way to private landlords. The area that I represent has, unfortunately, suffered severely from that in recent times.
8.30 pm
I was privileged to be chairman of the Wakefield metropolitan district council housing committee until 1978. At that time it enjoyed a waiting list time of only a fortnight; rents, including rates, were running at about £16; the council was doing an excellent job. Entirely as a result of Government housing policy since then, many areas in my constituency have been experiencing great difficulty—although it is probably not as bad as in some other places—in housing people. People are having trouble finding the present rents, even though many of them receive rent support.
If many of these local authority tenancies find their way into the private sector, we in my area fear that something similar to the free-for-all that took place with the sale of Coal Board tenancies will occur. I do not want to discuss that experience now, but it is a fact that, if council tenancies find their way into the private sector, private landlords will let out tenancies on short-term contracts at high rents, rates and key money. Such contracts will last for 12 months and landlords will reserve the right to throw the tenants out at the end of 12 months or to increase their rent substantially.
Unfortunately, many people purchased their properties in accordance with Government policy but, during the miners' strike, were unable to maintain their mortgages, were forced to give up their homes and were thrown on the market at the mercy of private landlords. That is the great danger of council properties finding their way into the private sector.
Why do the Government believe it is necessary? If they had continued to give the same support that has always been given to local authorities to maintain their housing stock, there would have been no need for this. Only political dogma can explain it.
I fully accept that many people would like to own their own homes and that many took the chance under this Government's policy, but they have now lost because they cannot maintain their mortgages——

Mr. Redmond: It is true that many people have had their homes repossessed and many families have been kicked out on the street. To whom did those people turn for accommodation? Did they turn to the local authorities who are getting hammered, or to the housing associations?

Mr. Lofthouse: They turned to local authorities, but because local authorities such as that in my area could not maintain their building programme and have built few homes for letting since 1979, they could not fill them up with tenants. They have no houses to offer, but are required by law to house the homeless. They then attempt to send the homeless to housing associations and do the best they possibly can for such people. That is ludicrous. If the Bill is enacted and there is a free-for-all, desperate people will be forced to accept short-term contracts of the type I have described. Young married couples with children who have nowhere to lay their heads will put their signatures to documents to obtain somewhere to live, knowing full well that the high rents—the key money and all that goes with it—are beyond their means.
What does this mean in the end? The Rachmans of this world will charge higher rents; their tenants will qualify for added rebate; that is an added charge on Government funds. Short-term contracts would involve higher rents, and because these people's incomes are insufficient to pay those rents, they will qualify for rebates for which the Government will have to foot the bill. That is crazy.
What are affordable rents?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I give my hon. Friend an example of an affordable rent? I have in mind a Minister's residence—a Prime Minister's residence. Apparently, the Prime Minister has an affordable rent. She pays nothing for 10 Downing street or for Chequers. I should like to know why that is not allowed for the millions of people who will be affected by the Bill. Why cannot they be allowed not to pay rent and rates? It seems that the fact that the Prime Minister does not pay has something to do with her taking a cut in her salary—yet other Ministers do pay. It sounds a bit of a twist. So if we are talking about affordable rents, let us think of those, such as the Prime Minister, who get their residences for nothing —

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This is an intervention. The hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced in these matters, knows that interventions must be short and to the point. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has the point.

Mr. Lofthouse: I have the point, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it——

Mr. Tim Devlin: May I follow that intervention by pointing out that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has a subsidised flat, which he gets from the National Union of ——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the clause that we are discussing.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As was explained by Mr. Speaker in a debate a few weeks ago when this matter was raised, I do not live and have never lived in a subsidised flat in London. That was made abundantly clear when Mr. Speaker referred to the fact that I had informed him of the position. I challenge the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) or anyone else: say that outside, and I shall ensure that the National Union of Seamen or some other union will get some money out of people who are prepared to make these statements——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made his position clear many weeks ago. I should have thought that all hon. Members were perfectly aware of it.

Mr. Lofthouse: I shall treat the remark from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) with the scorn that it deserves.
As I said, if new clause 38(1)(b) is passed, many council tenants may find themselves at the mercy of private landlords.
We cannot overlook the type of private landlord that may be attracted to these properties. It is the type of landlord who used to send letters to Coal Board tenants with a £ l coin in the envelope. Landlords of that type asked if they could inspect the interior of a property. They

then made a bid for the property and sold it the next day, making a profit of £3,000 within 24 hours. People like that could be interested in purchasing local authorities properties. The Bill gives no protection against that sort of thing. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments and new clause 38 and will bear in mind the dangers to council tenants that can arise.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): This is a useful debate, covering some of the basic issues of this part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) may have been a little surprised to find himself leading such a formidable group of Yorkshire Members. That was perhaps not a normal position for the hon. Gentleman. We covered many aspects of the problem, including Coal Board houses, and discussed some other problems that are present in the north as well as in the south. Nobody denies that.
New clause 38, which is at the heart of this group, is wide-ranging. It would apply to every type of landlord who provides or is likely to provide what we have come to call social rented housing. The amendments supplement the clause by requiring the Housing Corporation to pay grant to housing associations at particular levels in order to make the specified rent level effective.
The debate is wide-ranging, and I should like to say something about our future intentions towards housing associations. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to them and I know that that will be welcomed by the housing association movement. There has been rather more unanimity in the debate about the role of housing associations than there sometimes was in Committee. In Committee, one of the Opposition spokesmen did not share the views that have been expressed in this debate.
I am perfectly willing to join in tributes to the housing associations. The whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to try to enable housing associations to meet the needs of their traditional client groups, while being freed to some extent from the inevitable Government constraints of being fully within the public sector when it comes to the national accounts. Its purpose is to get more housing association property that meets the needs of the people. It is to ensure that those involved in the housing association movement from its very beginning—before the time that the House started to take an interest in cheap housing—can continue to meet those needs. Such housing is a major objective and was a major objective of one of my predecessors, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). That objective was to free housing associations and allow them more flexibility in this area. I am glad that that has now become a Government objective.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about one of the grounds on which we argued against the new clause in Committee. That is the danger —a real danger, although I shall not put too much weight on it—that if we go back to a system of centralised rent control, the market will be bound to look at the area as being firmly back in the public sector.
We would then have a market in which there were considerable Government grants amounting to hundreds of millions a year. Government would fix the rents by some formula such as that in the amendments. I shall not say that we would have lost the chance, because there might still be some schemes that would be financed on that basis, but we would have diminished the chance of attracting the


major flows of capital for the provision of social rented housing. That is because the feeling of the markets would be that this had not moved far enough from being the regulated market of the kind that they dislike.
8.45 pm
There is at least one other powerful reason for the change, and to it we attach at least as much, and perhaps more, importance. It is the very necessary changes introduced in, I think, 1974 by the bipartisan Act that established the modern housing association movement. One of the necessary parts of that Act was introduced because abuses had arisen in the old housing association movement. All parties and leading members of the housing association movement realised that the time had come to regulate the whole thing properly and to put it on a modern footing. The noble Lord Goodman and others played an important part in that. That was obviously right and we now have a proper regulatory framework.
The Housing Corporation's powers are widely accepted, and it has very able people. Perhaps inadvertently, we introduced in the process one fundamental change that has not been wholly to the benefit of the housing association movement. It was that we effectively made the housing association movement more or less completely part of the public provision. Virtually all the movement's money, except for the funds of housing associations that had some charitable funds, such as Guinness or Peabody, came from the state.
Although the strength of their different traditions has continued to provide to some extent a pluralistic supply in the social rented sector, they have steadily become, like any organisation that is wholly dependent on state funding, more and more like state bureaucracies. There is nothing wrong with state bureaucracies and they are perfectly necessary. However, the whole purpose of the movement to establish and expand the housing association sector has always been to try to provide an alternative sector for social provision with a variety of different styles and traditions.
Part of the purpose of the Bill is quite explicitly to try to push the housing associations a little further from Government. The key to that must be to say to them that when it comes to setting rents, to balancing the costs and to seeking the necessary efficiency, Government are asking them to take more responsibility and to stand further from Government.

Mr. Soley: I am puzzled as to whether the Minister is trying to push the housing associations further away or trying to drown them. Many of them are managing perfectly well on their own funds. Those funds have existed for a long time, and the associations can borrow on the capital. Is the Minister saying that they are not capable of continuing as they are? Why does he not help them to continue as they are, rather than putting added financial burdens on them, which is what he is doing?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should not be puzzled. One of the most welcome developments in recent times is that some of the associations with major reserves —I have mentioned two of them—have started to use the basis of those reserves to go out into the market. I welcome

that. We say that we should be seeking to help and encourage other associations to behave in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman applauds. I applaud that too.
The key to this is that the associations will continue to benefit from a high level of public subsidy. We are in the second year of the experimental mixed-funding scheme, which is 75 per cent. in London, 50 per cent. elsewhere and averages about 60 per cent. nationally. We are watching this very closely to see how rent levels turn out. It is better for associations to look to the needs that they know best and for their people with all their skills to find out how they can best meet those needs.
Of course, there is still 100 per cent. funding for the major part of the programme, and there is no need to fear that we shall not watch very closely what happens as the funding arrangements develop. The earnest of that is not to be found in anything that I have said, but in what we have done in moving from 30 per cent. to above 60 per cent. nationally.
The Government remain firmly committed to helping the housing associations to meet their objective. That is why we are providing the Housing Corporation with increased funds for them—to enable them to become more flexible and to restore to them a little of the independence that they have inevitably lost since Government agencies have been setting their rents. I assure hon. Members who made powerful speeches about the need in their areas—some of which I know because I have had the privilege of visiting them—that housing associations can still play, and increasingly play, an important part.
We are resisting the amendments on that basis, and not on the basis of wishing to drown or hinder the housing associations. I know that many people in the housing association movement—many I have met—are nervous about it, but there are also those who regard it as a challenge which they can meet and which will provide greater opportunities if we get the correct proportion of spending. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey fairly implied that that is so.
The best earnest of that is the figure that I quoted in a debate yesterday of the relatively small part of the approved development programme of the Housing Corporation that has entered into the Challenge funding scheme, which is about £58 million this year. Seven hundred million pounds-worth of applications have been received for that, which is encouraging. I do not believe that the housing associations, which are responsible for those applications, have deserted their roots. They believe that they can do what needs to be done for various schemes on the basis that we propose should be used more widely.
It is on that basis that we oppose the amendments and the new clause. It is not on the basis, as some hon. Members have alleged, that we doubt the purposes or wish to undermine the projects of the housing association movement.

Mr. Soley: The Minister gave the game away in his closing remarks, because he acknowledged that some of the housing associations are unhappy about what is happening. What the Government have done uniquely—what the Minister has done uniquely—is to divide the housing association movement. They have also burst wide open any consensus on housing associations that used to exist in the House.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman used that argument the other day. I can understand that, at a time of fairly radical change, there must be anxieties. However, he will remember that before the Act which we now all support—the measure that we drafted in 1973 and the Labour Government passed in 1974—many doubts and anxieties were expressed. It came later to be generally supported.

Mr. Soley: The radical difference is that the Minister knows—he has been told over and over again by people from the housing association movement—that he is pushing the housing associations up market. That invariably will be the result of this action. If he does that, all the words that I used in the House the other day when we were debating the Housing Bill apply. I must say that those housing associations that stay true to their original principles and continue to service the groups that they were set up to serve will receive our support. However, those who move up market and bring in outside private investment to the extent that they are providing an up market service will risk burning the fingers of their investors. That is the essential difference, because that did not have to be said before. Now that message has to go out loud and clear to housing associations and to investors.
Similarly, it has to be said, as I said the other day, that a Labour Government will reintroduce rents set independently of the landlord. I reiterate that it is not just the Labour Government who will do that. I predict with confidence that Conservative Governments will have to do the same, because the entire basis of the philosophy is economic nonsense. There is not and cannot be a free market in housing. At the least, it is a grossly inelastic supply system.
If the Government make a two thirds cut in housing completions in the public sector, cut the number of housing association completions and have only a minor improvement in the private sector rebuild for rent, scarcity must become worse. That must mean inevitably—even to someone who is on chapter 1 of a basic economics book —that rents will go up, that house price inflation and homelessness will continue to rise and, as all those things take place, that political pressure will grow to persuade the Government to do something about it.
If we cannot increase the supply of housing rapidly, Governments will have to step in sooner or later and say, "We will have to control rents." That is the central part of the argument. That is why the Conservative Government's attempt in 1957 to take off the Rent Act failed. They decreased the amount of private rented property available, just as the cut in the Rent Acts in 1980 decreased it. However, now, unlike then, we had housing associations to help us out. The Government have restricted the amount of building, and perhaps, above all, the amount of economic planning ahead that housing associations have been able to do. The constant twists and turns of Government housing finance policy have resulted in local authorities and housing associations not being able to plan ahead. If one cannot plan ahead on one's housing renovation, repair and rebuild programme, one must expect to create the managerial problems that this Government have created for local authorities and housing associations alike.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are on the same lines as amendments originally tabled by us but not

selected. However, they are important amendments and we have no hesitation in supporting them. There is no longer a consensus on housing association rents. That is what the Government have destroyed. Rents will not be limited to an affordable level for existing client groups, and that is the problem. The Minister constantly uses the word "affordable", but he never says what it means. We do not know what an affordable rent is supposed to be for anyone. All we know is that the Government talk at one level of affordable rents and at another level of market rents. We have some idea of what market rents will be, and I will return to that in a moment.
In Committee, the Minister said that he could agree wholeheartedly with me that no one wants the housing association movement to move away from doing the job for which it has been funded under both Labour and Conservative Governments. In the same speech in Committee, the Minister went on to say that the House would want to know whether subsidies would produce housing at low market rents. In other words, the Minister recognises that there is a need for housing associations to provide for the lower end of the market, but he cannot say how he will control the rent levels. At the same time he is describing and, indeed, by his actions, making housing associations go up market. They will increasingly be pushed into that corner by the Government's actions. The Minister says that he does not want to do that, so will he explain what he means by "affordable"?
9 pm
Let us pick on what I accept to be one of the most difficult areas in the country—London and the south-east. I looked at some of the newspapers and magazines in west London advertising property in the private market. I could find but one property, a bed-sitting room, available for £38 a week; the average rent was more than £200 a week. If we tried really hard, we might find the odd advertisement with rents in the upper £30, £40 or £50, but the majority would be £70 or £80 for those advertised in the local newspapers and more than £200 for those in estate agents' magazines. With rents for a one or two-bedroomed flat in west London of more than £200 a week, one does not need to be an intellectual Tarzan at economics to work out that if the Government continue to push housing associations into the private sector, their rents will begin to approach those prevailing in that sector. The more that that happens, the greater will become the problem of homelessness because people on low incomes simply cannot pay those rents.
Indeed, the Government's problems in the south-east will grow generally because, once again, people will have to move at least 100 miles out of London to find a housing belt that they can afford. However, at the same time high-cost housing is being built in that belt, which is why the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and others complain about development in the south-east. With the average price of a house in the south-east at about £150,000, it means rents of about £300 to £400 a week. Where will the second generation find properties to rent, or are they expected to buy as soon as they leave home? Where will essential workers live? I am referring to teachers, nurses and the people who clean our streets and drive our trains and buses. The more that housing associations are pushed up market, the greater will be the problems for those people.
We want to know whether the rent officer will use clause 109 to rule that a rent is unreasonably expensive. In a speech in August 1987, reflecting on housing policy, the Minister said:
For example, people assume that it is right to pay far more housing benefit, or to spend far more on building a council house or a housing association house in a high cost area than in a low cost area. That is, we are saying we will pay to keep poorer people in more expensive areas, even if it means that that recipient of help gets ten times more money or ten times more help in kind than someone in another part of the country.
The Minister then basically said that that was wrong. The implication is that we must make someone decide whether a rent is a proper rent for someone to pay and to receive subsidy towards in certain areas.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman would bore the House if he read out my old speeches. However, if he had properly read that one he would know that I said that such matters should be explicit and costed because they were part of housing policy. To understand the differences in costs is an essential ingredient in understanding the policy.

Mr. Soley: The Minister makes a fair point in saying that he is considering the wider issue. However, it would be hard to interpret, in any way other than I did, his comment:
I note that we do not think like that in terms of other welfare payments.
Presumably, he is saying that that is the wrong way to do it. Indeed, the whole speech implies that that is undesirable. If that is so, what is the purpose of clause 109?

Mr. Waldegrave: We shall debate clause 109 later, but in case anyone reading the report of this debate misinterprets it, I ask that my speech be read in whole because it was not designed for selective quotations.

Mr. Soley: I shall quote more of what the Minister said:
Usually, 'fairness' means national equality, roughly; in housing it is automatically taken to mean the opposite either because we assume that people have something near a right to live where they want (but only if they are receiving state money), or, perhaps because we are thinking that it would be undesirable for only better off people to live in high cost areas —and we are willing to pay for a social mix.
Would it not be interesting if, all of a sudden, the Minister said, "I am struck by the fairness principle; I had better apply it to mortgage income tax relief. We cannot have all those people buying expensive houses in expensive areas and expecting to be subsidised for it. That is unfair." If the Minister really believes that that is unfair, why do not he and the Government take me up on the offer that I have made several times? We are willing to work on a Bill that will reform housing finance in a way that makes it fairer, both between the rented sector and the purchase sector and within the two sectors.
At present, there is a gross distortion and massive unfairness against those people who rent. Increasingly in this country people do not have a right to rent. That is the problem. The Government talk constantly of a right to buy, but they will not talk of a right to rent and, as a consequence, homelessness has doubled. The only right of those homeless people is to a cardboard box under a bridge, yet we call ourselves a civilised society. If I were a Housing Minister in this Government, I would start asking myself what sort of a society we are creating in this country

where it is apparently perfectly acceptable to give £5 billion in mortgage income tax relief subsidy and about £500 million to subsidise the public housing sector, while at the same time watching homelessness double. What sort of society does that? What sort of Government are prepared to live with the gross unfairness that they have imposed and are continuing to impose with this Bill?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned Camden. I point out that in Camden a rent officer has set a fair rent of £105 per week in respect of a housing association flat, yet the housing benefit stop for Camden is £88 per week. When the Bill is enacted, the people concerned, because they are members of a housing association, will no longer be able to obtain full housing benefit. What will happen to them? Again, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made an important point. A person may at present be in a flat in Camden and pay a rent which is met by housing benefit subsidy, but, when the Bill is enacted, he or she will not receive that same degree of subsidy. That person will suffer a dramatic cut in state subsidy. The Minister may say, "Well, that is all right; I am only making it fairer," but he is in fact imposing the burden on people who rent while turning a blind eye to the increase in subsidy that he is prepared to give to those people who buy.
That is what is so wrong. I have no objection to people being subsidised for buying, but I have every objection if people are not given a relatively equal and fair subsidy for renting. That is what is so fundamentally wrong with this country. We do not subsidise rents as other European and north American countries do and we do not subsidise purchase in the same way as they do. We subsidise purchase far more generously. That is why people move constantly from the rented sector to the purchase sector and that is why there is a continuing decline in the availability of low-cost rented housing in Britain. Everything that the Government are doing in the Bill and in resisting the amendments is designed to make that worse.
What is the Government's policy on high-cost areas? The Minister does not appear to like me quoting from his speech; he appears to think that it is unfair.

Mr. Waldegrave: indicated dissent.

Mr. Soley: The Minister now appears to like me quoting from his speech, but I presume that he is prepared to stand up and tell us what policy the Government have for high-cost rent areas. As is inevitably happening in Camden, will they remove benefits so that people have to give up their flats and move out? Will they insist that some people do not receive the benefit that they received before because they live in unreasonably expensive areas? What will they do?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to prolong a full debate, but the hon. Gentleman deserves an answer. As he knows, the Bill deals with that problem because the housing benefit stop is a temporary system which will be replaced by the commitment that we have made and by clause 106, now clause 109, which states that a market rent—not something that is a distortion of the market rent, but a market rent—will be paid by housing benefit.

Mr. Soley: That is where we come to the "Catch 22" and that is why we distrust the Government so much. We keep hearing them say, "We are going to increase housing


benefit," but they have cut it eight times since 1979 and the evidence in the leaked documents from Downing street is that they will cut it again. The problem for the Government is that sooner or later—to be fair to the Minister of State, I think that he understands this although I am not sure that the Secretary of State does—they will not only have to increase housing benefit, they will have to do something radical about the way in which it is structured because, even if one doubled, trebled or quadrupled housing benefit overnight, that would still not help many people because of the way in which the tapers work.
Unless the Government can come up with a more sensible form of housing finance reform, they will be trapped. They can say to the country, "Do not worry; we will increase housing benefit," and those people who are in the know will say, "Hang on a minute; they have cut it eight times already," and those who are not in the know will say, "They will have to do that by a large amount to make it manageable." In early April, many people, who suddenly had their benefits cut, realised that that was happening to the extent of £10 or £20 per week—not by small amounts. When the Government and the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled did an about-turn on that after pressure had been put on them, they realised that they had hurt far more people far more deeply than they had thought.
If the process goes through, we need to know whether people on low incomes will be able to stay in some areas. The Minister knows that the Campaign for Homes in Central London, supported by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, myself and the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), has put to him in letters and on a visit that I was unable to attend, that the problem in London is so acute that unless the Government do something dramatic to increase the supply of low-cost rented accommodation, that shortage will continue to have a dramatic effect on London's economy because it is no longer possible to find the low-cost accommodation that is necessary if one is in a low-income job. It is fine if one already has accommodation, but, if one is second generation and is about to leave home, one does not get anything. Similarly, if one is trying to move to London to find work, one does not get anything.
I visited Reading some months ago to look at some of the properties that were being offered to people who were coming from the north to work around that area. The accommodation offered was appalling, and at a high rent. If we ask where such people will live we discover more of the hidden nightmares of the Government's housing policy. Some large building companies, for example, are encouraging their employees to sleep on site because that provides the company with night watchmen as well as enabling those people who have travelled down for the working week to have somewhere warm and dry to sleep at night—usually in one of the portakabins. When we see that that is happening in one of the world's richest countries, we ask, "What on earth are we doing?", but the Government drive on with all the blind stupidity that they can muster to plough through a system that is almost consciously designed to make the situation worse.
We want to know how the Government are going to change housing benefit. If the Minister says, "We have given a pledge to increase housing benefit," as I said earlier, that begs the second part of the question: what are

the Government going to do about the tapers? Will the tapers be reformed and revised so that they are made more effective and people do not get the sharp cut-off that they do at the moment? Is that what the Government are talking about? If so, when are we going to hear about it? Will it be in the form of yet more legislation on the hoof with provisions being presented to us suddenly as though they have just been dreamt up in one of the Minister's back rooms late at night with the thought, "We will shove this in the Housing Bill when it is going through Parliament so that we can dodge the Committee system. We do not need to bother with all that because we have a big enough majority to get it through."? Is that really what the Government will do?
I turn now to the effects of the provisions on some housing association tenants. I take as an example a family —a couple with two children under the age of 11, living in a newly built flat in Cambridgeshire, with a net household income, including child benefit, of £151·59p a week. If housing association grant is limited to 65 per cent. of scheme cost, the weekly rent required will be £46·61—about one third of that figure. Is that supposed to be an affordable rent? Is the Minister saying that what he means by an affordable rent is one third of a family's income? Or are we talking about 20 per cent. perhaps? Is that affordable?
9.15 pm
A single nurse aged 31 living in a one-bedroom modernised flat in Islington has a net income after tax of £117·31. If the housing association grant is limited to 75 per cent. of scheme cost, the weekly rent required will be £48·15—about 40 per cent. The Minister will probably remember—he was not present, needless to say, but he probably picked some of it up from the media—that I gave a press conference a month or so ago when the Government were giving their increase to the nurses. I demonstrated that with market rents a nurse in west London would be worse off financially by a significant sum —I cannot remember the exact figure now, but it was over £10 a week—simply on the basis of market rent, even taking into account the recent rise. So market rents, and presumably affordable rents, on the housing association basis, will leave nurses worse off in many cases than they were before. So much for that theory.
Pensioners are devastated by what has happened recently. The housing benefit cuts were cruel and vengeful. I remember at my advice night a 75-year-old couple—he was war-disabled—telling me that they had lost £7.51, I think it was. They were heating their house by paraffin. He was one of the people who talked to me about a land fit for heroes. When one hears things like that, one wonders what sort of a society the Government are creating.
A pensioner couple aged 68 and 66 living in a one-bedroom flat in a new sheltered housing scheme in Cardiff have a net household income, including the state pension, the husband's occupational pension and the wife's part-time earnings, of £130·48. If the housing association grant is limited to 40 per cent. of scheme cost, the weekly rent required will be £47·39.
We have three examples taken from the southern area of Britain—Wales, Cambridgeshire and London—that demonstrate that if the Government plough on in their mindless way it will mean that people will be expected to


spend between one third and one half of their income on rent. That will be the normal pattern of affordability for many areas of Britain.
If we suddenly turned the situation round and treated those who were purchasing their homes in the same way —expecting them to bear that burden throughout the period during which they were paying the mortgage—there would be uproar in this country. Sadly, it is because people in rented accommodation, particularly private tenants, have a less effective voice in British politics than those who purchase that the Government have been able to get away with ignoring them.
This goes back to what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said when he opened this debate, about the lack of interest in some areas. I would be the first to concede that, as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said, The Independent, The Guardian and one or two other newspapers have done good work on housing issues, but the vast majority of the British press have not shown any interest at all in the Housing Bill, and they are thus ignoring a very large section of the community who are being devastated by this Government.
One of the most important concepts that the Government have argued—the Minister put it first in his opening remarks—is that of attracting private money into housing associations. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I am not fussed about housing associations taking private money. That is fine. However, if they are pushed so far up market that they are unable to provide for the groups which they were set up to provide for, the Minister, as I have said on a number of occasions, will have busted wide open any consensus on housing in this country, because he will have put in the front line some of the most vulnerable in society. He has ignored the fact that the desperate need at the moment is for good, low-cost, rented and purchased accommodation. It is not available for the vast majority.
The Government say that they will encourage private investment. If private investment results in housing associations going so far up market that they cease to provide for the low-income groups for which they were set up to provide, they cannot expect to be bailed out by a future Labour Government. They cannot expect to be bailed out when rents set independently of the landlord are reintroduced by a Conservative Government or by a Labour Government, as will inevitably happen, for the reasons which I have outlined. They will get their fingers burnt.
If genuine money is invested in low-cost, rented accommodation, that will be good and I will support it. If building societies are interested, that is fine, too. What gives the game away is the Government's move in the Budget to invent the business expansion scheme. What do we find? We find Rachmanism paid for by the taxpayer. Even Conservative Back Benchers are worried that that is wide open for abuse. I raise that point because it is relevant to the crisis that the Government have created by cutting back so dramatically on the provision of public housing, including housing provided by housing associations, and by failing to increase supply in the private rented sector. Indeed, they have actually cut back the private rented sector by 500,000 homes since 1980. By doing all this the

Government have produced a crisis which they can only address by short-term crisis measures, of which the business expansion scheme is one.
I predict that we will have other measures. I fear that the Government are still trying to avoid their responsibility to face the fact that, as long as they subsidise the purchase sector and fail to subsidise the rented sector, they will continue to drive people into purchase, even when they want to rent, and they will continue to dry up the rented sector, public or private. As a result, the housing crisis will continue to get out of control. At first the position will only be noticeable when we walk along the streets at night and see the homeless begging or sleeping rough, or when we see people queueing up for council housing.
The Government try to kid everybody that council housing is unpopular, but people want to get out of the private sector into housing association and council accommodation. That is what is happening, despite the Government's constant attacks on local authorities and on housing associations which have made it continuously difficult for them to provide the quality of management which should be expected in any rented section, public or private.
The position will continue to get worse. People who were not previously affected are now suffering the long-term consequences of house price inflation. There is a link running through the housing problems. As I indicated earlier, as housing finance is more and more distorted, it is not just homelessness that goes up and the supply of low-cost rented accommodation that goes down, but house price inflation goes up, too. Several of my hon. Friends have raised that point. The three things are so interwoven that they demonstrate almost beyond any need for me to spell it out that the Government have no housing policy. Their policy is a shambles, a mess and a racket.
To his credit, in Committee, the Minister tried to pick up some of the bits for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Then he trotted out other bits and pieces which were an offensive act against the House. He did that in a way that showed the desperation which he feels about the needs of housing. Sadly, the problem will not go away. Whichever Government are in power in a couple of years' time, they will have to pick up the bits of this wretched mess, and, by God, it is a mess. We will support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I make no apology for bombarding the Minister with arguments that he has already heard from hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The Minister is part of a Government whose actions have led to one of the worst housing crises since the war, and he should be made to listen to the problems that his Government have created. I see the Secretary of State for the Environment hiding away in the corner of the Government Front Bench, but I am glad that he has come to listen.
The Minister has stated on many occasions that it is not his intention to force housing associations up market. He says that rents will be affordable, and many hon. Members have asked him what he considers to be "affordable", but we still do not know. I shall listen with interest for any indication of what "affordable" really means.


The Minister has also said that housing associations will be able to accommodate the kind of people for whom they now provide accommodation, but there are already problems. I refer to a problem affecting the Anchor housing association in my own area. It is a well-known and well-respected housing association, with a good reputation. It has near my constituency office in Halifax a lovely sheltered development, which is a housing with care scheme.
Housing associations are very good at caring for special groups of people—not least the elderly. The development to which I have referred cares for the very frail elderly, for whom it provides an ideal way of living. Care is there, but the independence of the individual remains, which is something that we all want to see. It offers 48 units, but it is not an institutionalised development and is the very best example of housing association accommodation.
That development is in trouble. Some weeks ago its management invited me to look around and meet the tenants there. They are very comfortable, happy and well cared for. They have a community room and everything that we would wish for those who are in their twilight years and finding it difficult to sustain an independent life alone. The scheme is running at a deficit. Its total annual expenditure is £355,189, but its income from tenants totals £324,630, leaving an annual deficit of more than £30,000. The deficit is currently running at £150 per week. That is happening because housing benefit no longer covers its costs.
That is just one example of the problems facing us. What on earth will happen to similar schemes in the future? The Minister cannot just sit there with his eyes closed, and with the Secretary of State nodding off in the corner of the Front Bench.

Mr. Barron: It is difficult to tell whether he is awake, even when he is standing.

Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I recognise that the problems in Halifax are probably nothing compared with those faced by my hon. Friends with constituencies in parts of London where there is a huge problem of homelessness, which destroys the assurances which have been given. We see the truth and the reality through the eyes of our hon. Friends representing constituencies there.
The Minister has given no assurances about the housing benefit stop. At present the housing benefit stop does not apply to housing association rent, so housing associations can let property to a tenant on full housing benefit, without which no one in low-paid work could afford it. What will happen to that property and others like it when the Bill is enacted? Will the rent officer, in his new role under clause 109, deem it acceptable for housing benefit or unreasonably expensive? Will the existing tenant be forced to move and the flat let to someone who can afford a rent of over £100 a week? What will happen to those who have formed themselves into a community? Will they be moved to places according to their different levels of income? They have no security, and great anxiety must be building up in those communities.
9.30 pm
Do the Government accept that people on low incomes have a right to live in certain areas? Will there be ghetto areas in which people with a certain level of income can

live? Will people be moved out just to tidy a place up? The Government have not told us whether we shall have that kind of dehumanising policy.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is now sitting in an upright position, will think again. They are inflicting this terrible Bill on vulnerable groups of people. It is not too late. I am sure that the Minister has had many wrangles with the Secretary of State who, having led a sheltered and privileged life himself, is renowned for his stubbornness and inability to understand how ordinary people live. I hope that the Minister will think about what he is doing and what the Bill will inflict upon people. It is not too late to retract.

Mr. Redmond: I shall not be too long, but I have sat through all the debate and I want to comment on one or two aspects of amendments Nos. 377 and 378 and new clause 38. I support the amendments and the new clause but I have certain reservations, some of which have already been expressed. The amendments and the new clause are obviously far superior to what is already in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the famous Warrington speech. I have not read that, but if it is anything like the Bill, I do not wish to. The hon. Gentleman looked for a little compassion on the Conservative Benches, but I do not think that he found any. He referred to the Bill being gobbledegook, like most Government publications. When I was a member of the old Doncaster metropolitan council, we spent a considerable time devising a rent rebate form that would be easy for tenants to understand so as to ensure that they claimed the maximum rent rebate.
The Bill is designed to take away many rights that the private tenant and the council tenant have previously enjoyed. Since 1979, the Government's main thrust has been against the council tenant, and they are now coming the old soft shoe shuffle, trying to get the housing associations to take up the slack that they have created. However, the two cannot be divorced in the two amendments and the new clause and the Government attack on housing. Council rents have a direct link with housing association rents. One can give many examples of where housing associations have linked their rents to council rents. They have always been on the high side in councils, but that is to be expected.
What never ceases to amuse me is that Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, have launched a massive attack on private and council tenants. I do not think that one of them has ever been a tenant. They lack experience of what tenants are looking for. I wonder whether the Minister would be in a position to give funds to a housing association that wanted to build accommodation in a sweet village not too far away where the farmer is having some difficulty over a planning application for housing.
I believe that it was in the mid-1960s that the question of fair rents arose——

Mr. Skinner: The fair rent idea began in about the late 1960s. It became the germ of an idea under that Tory wet, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—who was very Right-wing at the time—accompanied by the present Prime Minister. They introduced the Housing Finance Act 1972 in a blaze of glory. Many authorities refused to implement it, including Clay Cross, right to the bitter end.
It is interesting to note that although 11 members of Clay Cross council were bankrupted and surcharged, the Housing Finance Act suffered a severe rebuff in the 1974 general election and the legislation was not reintroduced thereafter. The fair rent principle, however, was continued in the sense that assessment officers were included in legislation for both private and public rents.
If my hon. Friend is going back to the 1960s, he can talk only in terms of the private sector, which was dealt with by rent assessment committees. But we may discuss that later.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. But I would argue that it was in 1967 and 1968 that people such as Percy Riley—who is now dead—and Owen Briscoe led the tenants' associations' fight against the higher rents that the Coal Board was trying to impose. To some extent British Coal as landlord can be likened to housing associations. I am certainly not critical of the excellent standards that housing associations provide, but it would be possible to be very critical of British Coal—or the National Coal Board, as it then was—for the conditions that it provided for tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) remembers Clay Cross. In my area in Doncaster there is a place called Conisbrough, which fought like hell.

Mr. Skinner: Conisbrough—that was the place.

Mr. Redmond: The housing chairman of the time ended up as chief whip on Doncaster council. The qualities that he showed on Conisbrough district council made him vice-chairman and then chairman of housing in Doncaster. Unfortunately, the old lad is dead now, but the Minister ought to go and meet him at the appropriate time. Of course, that would not be possible, because Alf went upstairs, and the Minister will obviously go downstairs!
I want to refer to Doncaster council because there is a direct link between the housing associations and public council tenants. One of the problems that housing associations have to face involves the greater demand placed on them as a direct result of Government policies to stop local authorities building houses. In 1974, Doncaster council decided to produce 1,500 new starts each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) is nodding and he was actively involved in that at the time. Those new starts were made to meet the needs of people in Doncaster.
Obviously the Government thought that such provision was off-putting when they came to power. They thought it was off-putting to meet the needs of young married couples and give them smart new houses with all the modern conveniences that money could buy. Therefore, the Government set about reducing housing grants. Systematically they robbed council tenants and, because of the link between them, they robbed the housing associations.
The tragedy is that, if the Government were really concerned about providing good housing stock for people to rent at a price that they could afford, they would be looking to local authorities to meet that need. In this thrust against council house tenants, I wonder whether the Government have considered some of the Conservative-controlled authorities which have taken some of the rents from council tenants to prop up the rates. That is diabolical.
Local authorities cannot use the money that has been accumulated in the kitty from the sale of council houses to make good repairs about which the Government do not care. I want to repeat a question which has been posed many times tonight: "What is a fair rent?" I do not know. Perhaps the Minister—or the Secretary of State when he wakes up—will give us the definition of a fair rent.

Mr. Skinner: We asked ourselves that question on the Clay Cross urban district council in the 1950s, 1960s and early 70s. We decided that the rent should be 30 bob in the old money because we were never keen on decimalisation, the Common Market and all that. We kept the rents down. The rents only went up 2s. 6d. in 12 years and some Tories took us to the district auditor. I thought that was terribly unfair because we were answering the question, "What is a fair rent?" We said it was 30 bob. That was 30 bob more rent than Minister's houses cost. We believe that that is the level that we should be targeting. I hope that that level will be included in the Liberal party recommendation for an affordable rent. I wonder whether that is carried through in Tower Hamlets for the Bangladeshis. That is the key question. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Mr. Redmond: I would obviously like to think that the level will relate to the affordable rent that has been mentioned. However, we do not see that compassion on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Hardy: Following from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred a moment ago, will my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley refer to a problem which may face his area and mine and which echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who quoted cases in Cardiff. When, in the next few months, we see the massive expansion of commuter traffic between London and Doncaster, because people will be able to complete that journey in 50 minutes, will the rents in the Doncaster area be fair on the people who maintain their present level of income given the impetus to house price inflation which will follow electrification?

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There are swings and roundabouts. One welcomes the electrification if the Channel tunnel has a terminal within Doncaster, as that will provide jobs. But obviously it brings the other evil—commuters from London who will gobble up the cheap houses in Doncaster which will raise prices. Then young married couples will not be able to afford houses.

Mr. Skinner: It is not as simple as that. My hon. Friend is right in one respect, but I must challenge him about commuters coming to Doncaster. It is true that they are coming to Grantham and further to Newark and Retford, but once they reach the coal mining areas where there is subsidence they have a problem. Yuppies will steer clear of subsidence now that the Government are helping the Coal Board not to pay out the moneys that it should pay for those houses. That is the speech that I should have made yesterday.

Mr. Redmond: That is a fair point. One of the benefits will be the jobs that the Channel tunnel terminal will bring to Doncaster. The bad effect will be the escalation of house


prices which will have a knock-on effect on houses beloging to housing associations in the Doncaster area. A further benefit of electrification is that it will bring yuppies and commuters from down south to Doncaster to meet real people who are the salt of the earth in south Yorkshire.
What is a fair rent? That is a valid question and I should like the Minister to answer it. I do not know what constitutes a fair rent. There is great talk about a body to which people can appeal, but it will not be like that. I do not know what teeth it will have.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that John Scurr house in Tower Hamlets, a semi-derelict estate that was emptied some time ago and which, if one visited it, one would think was uninhabitable, is now being used for homeless families? That is an improvement on the vast sums spent on bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but some of these families, who are paying rent to a housing association which is letting the flats under licence, are being charged £100 a week. That is more than double the price charged for good council flats. Does my hon. Friend think that that will be the future pattern of housing associations?

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend certainly has a point. The housing policy in London is uneconomic and crazy. It seems stupid to spend millions of pounds providing overnight accommodation but not to make the repairs and to provide good quality houses that are so desperately needed. To think that that is in the capital and that Ministers pass it every day is absolutely appalling.
Will fair rents apply to pubs? If prices escalate—I have never known owt come down under this Conservative Government—that will affect the price of a pint of beer. Obviously that will affect many Conservative Members, and I would not want that to happen. If rents escalate, many students who live away from the university campus will seek to return to campus and that will cause excessive overcrowding.
The old Adwick urban district council decided to allocate some ground to a housing association. It built some nice flats, but unfortunately it had to charge an economic rent. Over a period, the tenants found that they were unable to meet their rents and they went to the local authority for help. Can the Minister assure us that that will not happen as a result of an escalation in rent charges? He has already said that market forces will prevail.
In Doncaster, bungalows for old-age pensioners were provided at a fair rent. The authority made those bungalows available to the public and the private sector. Those bungalows met a demand because, at that time, the private sector did not provide such bungalows. The local authority intended to have 1,500 new starts per year, but that went by the board when the Government started to chop the housing grant to local authorities.
The Minister has spoken about meeting the needs of the people. The Government are not meeting that need because they are not providing the finance to local authorities and to housing associations to provide the accommodation that is desperately needed.
It has been said that housing benefit will meet the rents charged by the housing associations and the private sector. The Minister said that housing benefit will give such tenants protection against any savage increases. Perhaps

the Minister would care to come with me to one or two places in my constituency and talk to those people who have been affected by the latest cuts in housing benefit.
It is not good enough for the Government to produce a housing Bill that is totally devoid of the compassion and common sense that is needed to provide the necessary housing stock.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We began this debate at about half past 6. It is a testimony to the state of this Bill that you, Mr. Speaker, selected 196 amendments or new clauses for debate today. Half those amendments or new clauses have been introduced by the Government, but we have been fortunate to have a debate on two amendments and one new clause that have been tabled by the Opposition on a matter that the Government have not included in the Bill. A provision to ensure in law that people will rent at prices that they can afford was, like homelessness, a noticeable omission from the Bill.
This has been an interesting debate in another respect, too. There have been eight substantive contributions, seven by hon. Members from Opposition parties and one by a Conservative Member—the Minister. He had no choice but to make a speech, but not one Conservative Back Bencher spoke, in nearly three and a half hours of debate, in support of affordable rents for tenants. Is it surprising that there appear to be two nations, politically as well as in other respects?
It is good that the debate has shown the breadth of shared opinion among hon. Members in opposition parties. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and her hon., Friends for joining the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and me— representing London constituencies—and showing that the issue is of relevance and concern throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was worried that the Government might carve up the new clause and take the bits that give the Secretary of State power, throwing away the bits that give protection to tenants and ensuring that the future is as bad as what is proposed now. That is possible, of course. It is possible that the Government will maul and carve up a proposal that would give tenants protection. But the message that has come through loud and clear from us is that the 6 million or 7 million people whom we are discussing—the 6 million council house tenants, the 600,000 housing association and housing co-operative tenants and all who, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said, may join them if the council estates in which they live are taken over by housing associations or the private sector—should be protected from now on, and not left to be victims of the new Tory party market philosophy.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) made it clear that consensus across the political divide is needed for good housing law. The housing association movement was born of consensus. A Bill that was drafted by one Government was implemented almost unchanged by another. The most important part of consensus is that tenants should have rights, the most important being the right to a rent that they can afford. With the growth of housing associations encouraged by the Government, it is important that housing association tenants, as well as local authority tenants, should have rents that they can afford.
This is not an insignificant group. There are 1,800 registered housing associations in England and Wales, some with housing stock as large as 21,000 properties. The hon. Member for Halifax said that some of the people that we are discussing are among the most vulnerable in society. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) made it clear that this is a linked sector of housing associations and local authorities working together. They have done good work and are now desperately trying to pick up responsibility for those with whom the private sector cannot possibly hope to cope.
Next we heard the Minister's response. As is often said, he is an intelligent man. He could have dealt with proper concerns and given convincing and persuasive answers but, sadly, in a short speech, he did not. He gave two reasons for rejecting these amendments. The first was that they might diminish the chance of obtaining capital investment from the private sector. I shall quote briefly from a letter that he wrote to Richard Best; its first sentence is ironic:
As regards rents, there is nothing between us on objectives. It is, of course, an essential characteristic of the social housing sector that rents should be below market levels. But, as I have now explained in Committee, I still believe that a formal limit is not the right way to secure this; and indeed that it would undermine our policies for expansion of the movement to provide desperately-needed accommodation for those on lower incomes. The essential point is that rent control would be acceptable to the private investor only if the Government agreed to underwrite any resultant deficits.
That is precisely the case. If the public sector and not tenants bore the risk where necessary, the private sector would still invest in the future in the way that it has invested hitherto. The housing association movement has argued a different case.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Hughes: As I was saying, the housing association movement has argued a different case. It has argued that a sensible price for political consensus, regarded as vital to secure private sector investment, is some limitation on rent levels. That is what the amendments and the new clause seek to achieve. They seek not the informal protection that the Minister pretends will come, but formal protection that will be written into the Bill.
The second argument adduced by the Minister was that it is important that the housing association sector should not be on all fours with the public sector. I do not dissent from his logic on that. He said it is important that it should be free-standing, able to take initiatives and able to draw in willing money from the private sector. Of course that is right, but the role of the housing association is also to come to the aid of those who most need to be housed. The money will come in and the independence from the public sector will be guaranteed even if the Government accept that there must be a limitation on rents.
It is interesting to note that the Government were anxious to ensure that too large a public sector commitment to housing associations did not imply that it would be counted as public spending. The Minister well knows that, when Ministers accepted that the average for public sector housing association grant would be 60 per

cent. in England and 55 per cent. in Wales, the previous convention by the Treasury about that being public expenditure was changed. It was changed then, and it can be changed again. A more flexible system can and should incorporate rent control.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made three very important points, and I should like to repeat them. First, he made the case that the Opposition parties are arguing for subsidy for those who rent and that by resisting that the Government are massively subsidising those who buy. The divide continues. The Government say that they will help people who buy but will offer less help to those who rent.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Hammersmith said that our argument that consensus is the prerequisite for housing legislation appears to be falling on deaf ears. During the speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said he found it incredible that in England or Wales the Government are contemplating paying housing benefit on market rents.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Hammersmith said that the cut in housing benefit is not fantasy. We have seen it happen and do not believe promises that housing benefit bills will continue to be met. Those promises have not been kept in the past. Rented accommodation houses one third of our fellow citizens. The system was born of consensus and has been developed, especially by housing associations, in consensus. The risk is that it will be destroyed in a conflict precipitated by the consumerist greed of the Government, who are motivated to legislate for those who have against the interests of those who have not.
We are not embarrassed or ashamed of that consensus. We are its guardians. We are the guardians of the interests and rights of the vulnerable, the low-paid, the unpaid, the pensioner, the widow, the widower, the carer, the disabled, the single, the homeless and the inadequately housed. The Government promised that they would pay with housing benefit; we do not believe them.
There are two alternatives on which we are about to vote. We either write in protection for those on lower incomes or state benefit or we knock it out. The Opposition parties—and, I hope, some Conservative Members—will display a commitment to the fundamental principle that we should provide rented housing throughout the country, from the north to the south, at rents that people can afford.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 255.

Division No. 350]
[10.05


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Ailen (Paisley N)
Bidwell, Sydney


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Alton, David
Blunkett, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashdown, Paddy
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Buchan, Norman


Battle, John
Buckley, George J.


Beckett, Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.






Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clay, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clelland, David
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAllion, John


Corbett, Robin
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
McCartney, Ian


Cousins, Jim
Macdonald, Calum A.


Crowther, Stan
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McTaggart, Bob


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Douglas, Dick
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyte, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Galloway, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Reid, Dr John


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Holland, Stuart
Rooker, Jeff


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hood, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruddock, Joan


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Skinner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Janner, Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Johnston, Sir Russell
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Stott, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack





Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Worthington, Tony


Wall, Pat
Wray, Jimmy


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Malcolm Bruce


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)



Wigley, Dafydd





NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gow, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayward, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irvine, Michael


Dover, Den
Irving, Charles


Durant, Tony
Jack, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fallon, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Favell, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Key, Robert


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kirkhope, Timothy


Forman, Nigel
Knapman, Roger


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Forth, Eric
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Knowles, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Freeman, Roger
Lang, Ian


French, Douglas
Latham, Michael


Fry, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Gale, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gardiner, George
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gill, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Scott, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Madel, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mans, Keith
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich)


Moss, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Ward, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Redwood, John
Wilshire, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion



Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Rost, Peter



Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 247, in page 34, line 24, at end insert—
`( ) Where one of the associations mentioned in subsection (4) above is registered by the Housing Corporation and another is registered by Housing for Wales, the determination mentioned in subsection (5) above shall be such as shall be agreed between the two Corporations.'. —[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Paul Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 34, line 24, at end insert—

`(6) For the purposes of this section, section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 shall apply to the Corporation and to registered housing associations as it applies to local authorities.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 298.
Government new clause 29.

New clause 8—Extension of Section 71 powers—
'For the purposes of this Act, section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 shall apply to the Housing Corporation, a housing association and housing co-operative, a Housing Action Trust and a person who is an approved landlord by the Housing Corporation pursuant to Part IV of this Act, as it applies to local authorities.'.

Mr. Boateng: We are seeking to deal with some of the problems experienced by the most deprived section of our community in relation to housing—the black community. We would do well to reflect on the Minister's performance in Committee. The Minister was at his most effusive and emollient. He was all too happy to please, and all too willing to lend a sympathetic ear to our legitimate concerns. We were promised that we would be well pleased with the results of his deliberations in the Department of the Environment. However, when we come, at this late stage, to consider the Bill on Report—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am anxious to listen to the hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in our proceedings please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?

Mr. Boateng: —we find that the Minister has been unable to deliver his promises. Somewhere between the Committee and Report, he was nobbled. Opposition Members know who nobbled him—it was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
We were told that we would have a code to deal with the matters of concern that we raised in Committee about the needs and aspirations of the community in question in relation to housing. Where is the code? We have been waiting for it month after month, but there is still no sign of it. Instead, we have two Government proposals that recognise that it is important that section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 should apply to housing action trusts and to housing corporations, but that is as far as the Government are prepared to go.
Our amendment and new clause seek to recognise the deep-rooted disadvantage that exists in relation to the black community and housing. I give some examples of the form in which that disadvantage manifests itself in London. When one looks at the results of the surveys that have been carried out over the years by, for example, the Policy Studies Institute, the Commission for Racial Equality, the London boroughs, and the then Greater London council, one finds that a pattern of deprivation emerges in every sector of the housing market.
That pattern of deprivation is evident in the private rented sector, in local authority provision and in the provision offered by housing associations. The picture that emerges is that if black people are owner-occupiers they tend to live in the older, more overcrowded terraced houses in our communities. If they are council tenants, again, they tend to live in the older more overcrowded or high rise properties. If they are private tenants, they tend to pay higher rents for poorer quality accommodation outside the protection of the Rent Acts.
Private landlords refuse to let accommodation to black and ethnic minority people because of their race, estate agents refuse to give details of houses to black and ethnic minority applicants, and local authorities tend to allocate to black families some of the worst accommodation that exists within their stock of property. The activities of housing associations leave much to be desired. Both private and public developers are failing to provide the sort of accommodation that is needed to meet the needs and aspirations of the minority community.
What hope do the Government's amendment and their new clause hold out to that most deprived section of the community, to the 75 per cent. of all those homeless in Brent who find themselves in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and who are black? I am afraid that the Minister has lost his opportunity to hold out the hope of any improvement for them. When we examine how he has lost that opportunity we are forced to the conclusion that, whatever his good intentions when the Bill was in Committee, he has not been able to deliver them in the face of opposition from within the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's eloquent speech, but I shall be providing reasons why we are not able to bring forward the code in the House. But he will get his code.

Mr. Boateng: We welcome the assurance that comes at this late stage, but our concern is not simply with the fact that a code might at some unspecified time in the future be produced. We are, with respect, concerned about the content of that code, and we have every right to be so concerned.
Considering how we treated the Minister in Committee, and how until now we have treated him on Report, he should realise that he has got off very lightly. We have treated him as a nice man delivering a nasty Bill. That may have been our mistake, because perhaps the Minister is not so nice after all. Perhaps we have mistaken the man because of the way in which he brings forward these provisions, and perhaps the time has come when we should see his true nature.
I must admit that there is one hon. Member who has seen through the Minister from the word go——

Mr. David Winnick: Me?

Mr. Boateng: No. My hon. Friend will no doubt have his moment of glory, but it will not be now. That man is my hon. Friend the Minister for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He has always been quite clear. I see a smile beginning to play around the lips of the Minister and, indeed, those of his acolyte, who sits so resplendent beside him, recently returned, we understand, from studying opera in Finland. It is said that the opera is not over until the fat lady sings. I am bound to say that we have not heard a word from the hon. Lady in the course of this whole debate. We would like to hear more. We are very fond of her.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I spoke in the debate yesterday, but unfortunately the hon. Member was not in the Chamber at the time.

Mr. Boateng: I am delighted that at last the hon. Lady has been ungagged, because our experience of the hon.

Lady's performance in Committee was that she was very rarely let loose, and when she was she seldom departed from her brief. I do not want to be seen to be ungallant to the hon. Lady, because all hon. Members who were on the Committee, rather than joining in at this late stage and mocking from the middle Benches, will know the high regard in which we hold the hon. Lady. She was our greatest friend in Committee, and whenever she speaks, the clarity of our argument becomes even greater and the wisdom that we have over the months sought to share with Government Members becomes that much clearer. I am sorry to have missed the hon. Lady's speech, but it does not in any way detract from the point that I seek to make about the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has always maintained that the Minister would go down in the halls of infamy for his role in producing the Bill. I see a chorus of assent from my hon. Friends who were most closely associated with him in Committee. I beg to differ. Hon. Membes on both sides of the House and, I am sure, the Minister of State, will remember Caligula and his horse. Hon. Members should reflect on the fact that there was another person connected with Caligula and his horse whom we tend to forget. That person was the hapless senator whose job it was to introduce Caligula's horse into the chamber of the senate of Rome. We remember Caligula and we remember the horse, just as we will remember the Bill and the Secretary of State, but we do not remember the hapless soul who had to introduce the horse into the chamber of the senate.
10.30 pm
In tabling the Government amendments and, indeed, in introducing the Bill in its entirety, the Minister has all the moral authority and political credibility of the senator who introduced the horse into the senate of Rome, and his fate will be the fate of that senator—obscurity. He will not be remembered. If he sees another summer on the Front Bench as a Minister of State, I will eat the provisions of this amendment with a light cheese sauce.
The Minister has sealed his fate in bringing forward the amendments and the new clause. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us what is in the long-awaited charter for which we have been holding our breath. Will it deal with harassment by the private landlord which is the common experience of all too many Asian and Afro-Caribbean people? Will it provide a means by which that harassment can be avoided? Will it answer the very clear picture presented by the Greater London housing condition survey, by the survey of private tenants in London conducted in 1983 and 1984 and by the London housing survey of 1986 and 1987? The picture which conies from all that work, which is not likely to be dismissed by the Minister, is that the impact of housing deprivation on our city is felt most directly by the Afro-Caribbean and Asian community.
On numerous occasions the Minister has gone out of his way to praise the response of that community to the housing crisis. In his response to this debate I want him to deal with a number of questions about the role of Afro-Caribbean and Asian housing associations if our amendment and new clause are not passed by the House. As the Minister well knows, the impact of the Bill on housing associations that cater for these special needs will be to render them less likely to be able to cater for those needs at acceptable levels of rent.
The Minister knows that, as a proportion of earned income used for rent, the black family is likely to spend about 42·5 per cent., while the white family will spend about 36·5 per cent. He knows also that in London, with 70 per cent. HAG, a couple with two children will pay £45·99 per week rent as a result of the Government's proposals.
The Minister must be able to tell the House that his new clause and amendment, which deal only with housing associations and housing action trusts, will deal with that issue. He must be able to assure the House that housing associations will, in view of their size, be able to raise sufficient private capital to meet the new conditions under which all new associations will be obliged to operate when the Bill is enacted. The Minister must also assure the House that there will not be the loss of revenue to those housing associations that we fear because fewer families will be able to maintain their rent payments at the new level.
We suggested ways in which it might be possible for the Government to acknowledge that it is important that the Housing Corporation and the Secretary of State should consult black housing associations before making financial determinations that affected the special needs that they were established to serve, but answer came there none.
We asked the Minister to consider, but he failed to do so, a means by which it would be possible to ensure that statutory revenue funding to black housing associations would be guaranteed during the first few years of their life, to provide the start that is necessary if they are not to fail. The Minister knows, because his Department has undertaken the research that shows this, that without that start-up support, the survival rate is likely to be unacceptable.
This is not a topic to which the Minister is oblivious or about which he does not care—he does, but he has been nobbled. He knows also that, because of the way in which housing associations conduct themselves, there is no room for complacency. The idea that by applying section 71 to the Housing Corporation one will necessarily enjoy a spin-off effect in terms of the way in which housing associations conduct themselves simply is not on.
I will give the Minister one example from the city of Leeds, showing the impact of the Government's proposals and the beneficial effect that our amendment and new clause would have. Leeds city council conducted a survey of the equal opportunities policy of 18 housing associations in its area, and all credit goes to it for doing so. That survey found that 66 per cent. of management

committees gave cause for concern over their black membership. They simply did not have any, or sufficient, black members. Fifty per cent. of the associations needed to ensure that black people had access to their housing, because their existing patterns and systems of regulation worked in such a way as to ensure that that did not happen.
The survey showed also that 44 per cent. of the associations had not even established ethnic record keeping for housing allocations, so they would have no way of determining whether they were meeting any guidelines subsequently laid down by the Housing Corporation or by the Secretary of State. Fifty-five per cent. of them did not keep ethnic employment records, and 50 per cent. needed to monitor records in other areas of particular concern to them. Sixty-six per cent. of the associations did not even produce reports for their management committees, 44 per cent. had not adopted a policy of racial harassment, and 78 per cent. had not taken any action to deal with specific issues and causes of concern in the communities that they were seeking to serve.
Those are the facts, and they were produced with good will and good intentions. Can the Minister really come to the Dispatch Box and tell us in good faith that section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 should not apply to housing associations? I suspect that he cannot. I suspect that he will find great difficulty in doing so. He is an honest man, so I hope he will recognise that something has to be done. Something must be done about racial harassment, homelessness and the housing associations.
When the Minister looks at the likely impact on the black community of the change in landlord provisions in the Bill, can he say that it will not be necessary to introduce the amendment? He has an opportunity to redeem his reputation. He need not necessarily go down as the third party to that triangle between Caligula and his horse. This is his opportunity. We look forward to hearing what he says. We look forward to seeing his commitment in a practical sense to creating a successful multiracial society in terms of housing provision. We look forward to his demonstrating in a practical way his commitment to ensuring that the real patterns of deprivation and disadvantage in housing are not replicated in the experience of Britain's black community.
We wait for the Minister's answers, but we do not wait with bated breath, because our experience of his previous contributions in this respect is not a happy one. However, the communities that we represent are tired of waiting. They want justice and they sent us here to get it, and justice we shall ensure that they have.

Mr. Waldegrave: Those who were not fortunate to be on the Committee that considered the Bill will have seen that one reason why it was so enjoyable was the speeches of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) which have a style and panache which always make them a pleasure to listen to, even though they sometimes depart from the direct line of the argument.
I am becoming a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's references to Suetonius. Yesterday I was likened to Caligula's horse. I have now gone up to the senator. That seems to be progress in the right direction, but as far as I know, remembering that book, there is nothing to say that either the horse or the senator did not live to a happy old age, so that analogy may be perfectly satisfactory.
I think that by the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech we were coming back on to the track, because he and I are not far apart on these issues. I recently spoke to the annual general meeting of the Ujima housing association, a huge meeting with a number of housing associations serving minority communities. I do not think that he was present on that occasion, but I think that he has been present on similar occasions in the past.
There is no question but that the examples that the hon. Gentleman and others can give show that housing is one of the areas in which racial discrimination has been frequent and can be damaging. But during the course of that meeting, one remark by a delegate from the floor of the hall stuck in my memory, because sometimes the conclusions are not always what one expects. He was an immigrant from Jamaica, and he said that when he and his friends and relations first came to Britain they certainly faced discrimination—very largely, as he put it, from the public sector. He reminded the meeting that it had often been the private sector, with all its faults, that had provided any housing at all in those days. Faults are to be found not only in one sector.
That is why I want to say straight away that there has been no backing off from the commitment. As a matter of fact, I did not make a commitment in Committee to ask the Commission for Racial Equality to bring forward a code on housing practice. I said that we would look at that. We have decided that we should do that. We have decided to invite the CRE to bring forward a code covering all housing. I am no expert in these matters, but we wish this to cover all housing, not just rented housing.
The hon. Gentleman may have seen a recent controversial film made by the local television company in Bristol, which showed that discrimination could be found not only in rented housing but in other forms of accommodation. The rules of another place may allow us more easily than those of this House to introduce an amendment to which could be attached a code dealing with all housing. That is our intention, and that is why the amendment is not down at this stage. It is, of course, for the CRE to bring forward the code, which must be discussed before it is finally approved by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend will recall that race relations and racial harassment on estates were debated in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship. It is inherent in deciding whether the Government are following the right course for us to know at least some of

what will be in my hon. Friend's mind when he brings forward the code. I accept that it is a matter for the CRE, but the task will be very difficult unless he is able at least to raise the curtain slightly and show us what he is looking for.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend—who, I know, has considerable interest in these matters—will know that it is for the CRE to bring forward the code, after which there will be widespread consultation on it. We have committed ourselves to giving the code a statutory basis and inviting the CRE to bring it forward—an invitation that that organisation has welcomed. I do not consider it right in this instance—as opposed to others that we shall discuss later tonight—to try to foreshadow completely what will be done. The CRE is the expert, and it must bring forward its proposals.
With one exception to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred, we accepted the proposals put forward from both sides—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) spoke on the matter in Committee—and agreed to make section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 bite on the Housing Corporation and on housing action trusts. We did not go the step further that the hon. Member for Brent, South wanted, which was to make it bite on housing associations individually as well.
We considered the proposal and listened to the arguments put in Committee, but we believe that section 71 is a duty specifically tailored for public authorities and those who hold wider responsibilities. It applies to local authorities; it should apply to the Housing Corporation, because the corporation, in the more pluralistic social housing sector, will have some of the wider responsibilities of local councils; and it should apply to HATs, because they will be standing in temporarily for local authorities in some of their funcions. However, while the housing associations will be relieved of none of their duties to behave properly about discrimination we do not believe that section 71, which is aimed at public authorities, can be suitably applied to the specialist providers of housing, with their narrower function.
That is not to say that it is not vital for social or any other landlords to conduct their affairs properly. They are already subject to the provisions in the 1976 Act which make it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of services and accommodation. I do not feel, however, that what might be called the "promotional" side of section 71 relates to their primary function.
I hope that, underneath the enjoyable rhetoric, the hon. Member for Brent, South, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, will agree that we have moved rather further than we said we would in Committee in one important respect. We have invited the CRE to bring forward a code, and promised an amendment in another place to give it a statutory basis. That shows that we share the hon. Gentleman's view that the subject is important. I hope that he will agree, in a spirit of fairness, that we are moving a long way in the right direction.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Opposition will not divide the House on this issue. We recognise that there was a measure of bipartisanship in Committee and that the Government have come forward with something of a concession. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, we are not satisfied with


the Government's concessions. We are not happy, because the code that we were promised is not before the House now for us to judge.

Mr. Waldegrave: It was not promised.

Mr. Roberts: The Minister says from a sedentary position that it was not promised. We were told that we were going to get it. We are now told that we shall get it in another place.
The general problem with the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill, not just on Report now but in Committee, is that everything has been up in the air. The Government have promised to do something and then said that they are not sure about the proper form for doing it. They said that we would know where the housing action trusts are by Second Reading, but we still do not know where they are and we still do not know what criteria will apply to them. There will be a code in relation to the social landlord, but that will not be included in the Bill now. We shall have that code after we have considered the Bill, and we shall not know whether it will be satisfactory. We are in the same position now, as the Government have said that there is a code in relation to racial discrimination, but they will not let the House see it before we pass the legislation in this place. They said that it will be introduced in another place. We shall not be able to judge whether the code is satisfactory while we deal with the amendments and Third Reading in this place.
We believe that the Government have treated the House with contempt. This Bill is completely different from the one that we debated in Committee. Even now, with the 180-odd amendments, new schedules and new clauses which amount to a total rewrite of the Bill since it came from Committee, we are told that other major amendments, including a whole code on the very important issue of racial discrimination, will be tabled in another place. That is what the Minister said.
The Minister said that there would be a major amendment on the issue in another place because the procedures in another place are a better way of dealing with the matter and getting it through. It is a strange admission for the Minister to make that it is easier to get amendments and legislation through, another place than the House of Commons. If that is the case, perhaps the House should scrutinise the matter and make it a little more difficult for the Government to push this through.
The Minister might be pleased to hear that we accept that there might be an amendment to deal with the issue in the spirit of the concession or commitment that the Minister gave. He seems to believe that no commitment was given, but we think that one was made and it seems to have been followed up by the Minister, at least to the extent that we have a commitment that we shall get the code. We have had a concession from the Government on that. Therefore, we shall not divide the House.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I want to be brief——

Mr. David Harris: Very brief.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend says be brief, and I will be.
After the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boeteng) finished giving us his racing tips for Epsom when he talked about horses, he made a very serious contribution and I agreed with the points that he made.
I regard this as an extremely important issue. If we talk to anyone who has suffered racial harassment in housing or any other sphere of activity, we realise how serious this is and what a degradation it is to those people. It is an affront that this still happens.
It is important that the Department of the Environment drives towards a proper code of practice and that the matter is not simply left to the Commission for Racial Equality. I do not want to make disparaging comments about the commission's abilities, but it took many years to put together a proper code of practice for employment. I would not like us to have to wait two, three or four years for the code of practice that so many of us seek so urgently in this area.
I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister not only the work by Leeds city council, but previous important and serious work by the Greater London council and by some boroughs in the east end of London. They uncovered some problems which had not been brought to light previously. That is more apposite and useful than the draft code of conduct that I have seen from the Commission for Racial Equality to date.
By the time this Bill goes to the other place and subsequently returns, I hope that we shall see some significant progress in this area and that the Government have been able to satisfy the hon. Member for Brent, South and me. I hope that we shall have made progress in helping people who urgently need our help.

Mr. Boateng: I wonder whether the Minister could clarify one or two points for us about this code of practice, aspects of which are only now coming to the fore. Has he any timetable for its presentation? Is it to see the light of day during the deliberations in the other place? Will the other place be treated to insights into its contents, to which we have not been treated, or will it simply be given the option to amend the Bill to enable it to exist at some later date within a statutory context?
The Minister talks about the breadth of consultation. Will it include the National Federation of Black Housing Associations and local authorities which have some experience of seeking to address these issues? How wide will consultations be? Will it draw on the fund of knowledge and experience to which the Minister referred in relation to the Ujima housing association and others in terms of making the provisions work in biting and impacting on the sort of problems that are faced within housing associations—the sons and daughters rule, for example? Can the Minister flesh out the proposals for the code of practice in that respect? If he cannot, we shall continue to have real doubts.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like the Minister to enlarge on the code, because it forms a semi-area of delegated legislation. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I believe that it is important that the House should have some details.
The way that we deal with delegated legislation is inadequate, particularly with codes of practice, because they inhabit a sort of never-never land: they are not the rule of law, yet they are invoked in prosecution cases. Breaches of the code are primie facie regarded, if it is a


statutory enforcement, as breaches of a statutory requirement. Can the Minister enlarge on this, particularly regarding consultation? The Government are moving increasingly to codes of guidance and practice, which is less than satisfactory. Statutory instruments at least have the merit of being clear, in that they are delegated legislation. They are not in the in-between position of simply being a guide so that a breach is not a breach of law. Therefore, consultation is important. We should know in detail which bodies will be consulted, and this House should be consulted.
We are all keen for outside bodies to be consulted, and we want to know that that is happening. It amazes me, however, that this House, which is the most important legislature in the country, is often presented with a fait accompli. No consultation documents are made available in the Vote Office. Hon. Members are unable to obtain such documents or to submit amendments.
11 pm
One of the problems with delegated legislation—for the purposes of discussion I shall include codes of practice—is that there is no opportunity to amend it. Primary legislation is amended as it makes its passage through the House. Committee members may amend a Bill in detail and every hon. Member may amend a Bill on Report.
I guess that the Minister will produce a code, describe it as a step forward and say, "Take it or leave it." He will not use such words, of course, but that is the effect produced by the Executive presenting such a document to the House. The Government will consult outside bodies and may consider amendments—frankly, I hope they will.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will present an outline code to the House and invite comment upon it; otherwise the code will be presented as decided by the Minister—that is the only process available for dealing with it. There are no Committees that can examine such codes and there are no other means by which they can be debated in the House. Statutory instruments are subject to the negative procedure and if a prayer is put down there is a chance for debate. An affirmative resolution must receive the resolution of the House and is at least dealt with by the merits Committee upstairs. There is no procedure to allow a code to be examined, challenged or amended.
The Minister may say that the code is only a guide, not legislation, and that it is simply something that the Government expect people to follow. If people breach that code they are in danger of having a case found against them. Codes of practice are being increasingly used by the Government. Absolute provisions relating to health and safety at work are being supplanted by codes of practice. I regard that as watering down standards.
I hope that the Minister will adopt a conciliatory attitude and will agree to produce an outline proposal so that hon. Members can make suggestions. Anyone who takes an interest in housing would want to make such a contribution. Such consultation should be additional to the consultations that the Minister has already mentioned.
Some of us have deep suspicions that Ministers are producing the code of practice to act as a sop to criticisms, and that they have no intention of utilising legislation through delegated powers because they want to deal with the matter in a way that satisfies all parties. It is difficult to do that in this circumstance because racial discrimination is not a subject on which we can be nice to all sides. We must tackle the matter firmly. In such circumstances,

legislation is the best and only way in which to do it. The Minister may be aware that codes of practice do not have to be considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments or by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—there are no provisions for such consultation.
I hope that the Minister, who I know takes an interest in the detailed application of these things, will examine this matter and return with it to the House, so that we can see what sort of improvements he has in mind for our scrutiny of this area, which is of great importance.

Mr. Pat Wall: I support the demand for an effective code of conduct. The problem has been greatly oversimplified. Some of the nationally published reports show that, in Liverpool, for example,
black people usually have to wait longer for Council housing and when rehoused tend to be given lower quality accommodation.
In Hackney,
black applicants seem either to have difficulty in obtaining access to Council housing, or consistently receive poorer-quality accommodation than white applicants.
This problem also applies to Leeds and every other major urban centre with a high immigrant population.
This is not only a problem of the direct exclusion of black people, or of poorer provision and longer waiting periods for black applicants. There is no housing policy designed by most local authorities or housing associations to deal with the problems of the Asian population of Bradford and other parts of the country.
I refer to a report done for Bradford city council in the Manningham area of Bradford. Of the housing used by immigrants in that area, 92·2 per cent. was late Victorian, much of it back-to-back; 86·3 per cent. was owner-occupied; and only 13·7 per cent. was rented. The reason for that was that in the appalling economic conditions that prevail, more than 35 per cent. of the houses surveyed contained no one in full-time employment. More than two thirds contained only one person in full or part-time employment. Most of the families in the properties were grossly overcrowded and living in appalling conditions. It is not as if they wanted to purchase their properties. They would have much preferred to rent, but that sort of property is not available.
The vast majority of housing association accommodation is single or two-bedroomed—for one or two people, or for families with one or two children, or for elderly people on their own. Hence there is no provision for the extended families of Asian households and large houses in housing associations are generally not used as such but are converted into flats and bed-sits. It is impossible for Asian families to move in and use these facilities.
The Manningham survey frankly pointed to the surprising fact that Asian people prefer to live in the inner cities with their communities, because of racism, other pressures and problems of language. They want the protection that the community spirit affords. There are plenty of slum-clearance areas in the inner cities, but they are not being used for housing provision for ordinary families—particularly, not for immigrant families.
It is nice, of course to have a code and to say that a certain proportion——

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said earlier that he had seen the draft CRE code to which my hon. Friend


referred earlier. Knowing my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, I wondered whether anyone had bothered to show him a copy?

Mr. Wall: I have not seen a draft of the charter. No doubt I can trot over to the other place and see my old friend Bill Sefton, now Lord Sefton of Garston, in whose house I joined the Labour party. He will tell me what is going on in that place and we can discuss it and I can find out more about this problem.
I should like to quote from the Manningham association report in relation to the question of owner-occupation. It says:
The existence of owner-occupation cannot be taken as an indication of high standards of housing or indeed wealth. Owner-occupation has become the only alternative to over-occupied scarce rented housing. In order to meet the economic burdens of mortgage repayments and housing maintenance the sharing arrangements of large Asian families alleviates to some degree the serious levels of poverty.
High percentages of home ownership have therefore been achieved by economies of scale in the presence of relatively larger numbers of persons per house. The cost of home-ownership in social terms is revealed by cramped and severely overcrowded conditions within the Asian community. The largely held assumption of home ownership being linked to prosperity is therefore deceptive. Whilst there undoubtedly exists a greater inclination and desire for owner-occupied housing within the Asian community, the availability of large rented houses is non-existent.
That clearly expresses the present difficulty.
The report goes on to deal with local housing associations. The Brunel and Family housing association and the North British housing association have made an attempt to provide some large accommodation for Asian families, but that has by no means met the need. The Manningham housing association was founded deliberately to tackle the problem. However, it is under-resourced and under-funded, and for those reasons it cannot make any inroads into the appalling overcrowding and social problems.
The report on Manningham says:
The housing associations which operate in the Manningham area cater largely for single persons, lone parents and the elderly. Large families sized accommodation is broadly speaking not provided by these associations. The rehabilitation work undertaken by housing associations has undoubtedly removed the larger properties from the private market. The larger houses are invariably converted into bedsits and flats. The lack of provision of larger family units by housing associations is due mainly to demand pressures for single persons. The future possibilities of undertaking rehabilitaion projects for the purpose of family accommodation is increasingly diminishing. Clearly, as associations successfully convert this dilapidated housing into flats and flatlets, less become available for alternative uses.
The ethnic minorities tend to be under-represented in housing association properties. Those who do keep ethnic records should be encouraged to publish their statistics and implement equal opportunity policies. The National Federation of Housing Associations has provided a comprehensive guide as to how this can be achieved. The creation of a specialist Section 11 post of Housing Association Development Worker could monitor and develop the equal opportuntites progress of Housing Associations.
I press quite strongly for the needs of Asian communities to be taken into account. Bradford has the most abominable housing conditions in Britain. I must press especially for the Asian community to be represented on the governing bodies of housing associations. Only when such representation is reflected in the associations

will Asian needs begin to be met. Only then will a code of conduct be of any use. If a code of conduct applies to housing associations with small units of accommodation, it will serve no purpose for the vast majority of Asian people in Bradford, Leicester, and other cities. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not only give us some assurance about an anti-racist and fair code of conduct, but deal with the problems of Asian and other people who prefer to live in large family units.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall speak briefly. I do not want to set myself up against the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is such an expert on the arguments about the control over delegated legislation, which go back many years.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the code would be one of those codes which, with a statutory peg, could be taken into account in court proceedings brought under the 1976 Act. In that sense, we would be returning to the express provisions of a broadly bipartisan Act that was introduced by our predecessors to deal with racial equality.
The one matter that is, perhaps, different from the point made by the hon. Gentleman is that we would not be taking the initiative in drafting the code. The Commission for Racial Equality asked us to provide the power under which it could produce a code of practice. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to be conciliatory, and I shall try to be so. The best thing that I can do is direct his words to the attention of the CRE so that it might offer to consult interested Members of the House. The procedure for this code is equivalent to the employment code—and I believe that there will be one coming forward on education—which is that the Secretary of State approves it and it is then laid before the House. I do not want to commit myself to any new procedure that I cannot subsequently deliver, although I shall draw the CRE's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Has my hon. Friend seen the draft code of practice that has been drawn up by the CRE, which it gave me during the Committee stage of the Bill and on which I made some comments at that stage?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not claim that I know it by heart, but I know that it exists. I have looked through it. I have confidence in asking the House to follow the usual procedure, because I know that the CRE is well forward with its work and that the procedure is in train. As my hon. Friend says, there is a first outline, rough draft in existence.

Mr. Boateng: Why is it that some Conservative Members have had access to the draft code and Opposition Members have not? This is the first that the Opposition have heard of such a code. If it is circulating among Conservative Members, why has the National Federation of Housing Associations not been consulted about this code? Why is that the local authorities have not been consulted about this code? Why should it be only the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) who has been made privy to the thoughts of the Commission for Racial Equality?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am answering outside my responsibility. I have no idea how my hon. Friend the
Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) gained access to the code. Perhaps the hon. Member should address his question to the CRE.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) wish to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Boateng: May I make a few points in conclusion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House twice, so he cannot speak again.

Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right that there should be introduced into the House at this late stage a document that is clearly relevant to the procedures before the House, but about which we have been given no prior notice whatsoever——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House twice.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The usual procedure is that when the Government introduce a document, they lay it on the Table of the House. The Minister referred to a CRE document, which, as you have heard has been distributed to some hon. Members. The Minister referred to the code which the CRE is developing, and which will apparently be the subject of approval by the Secretary of State ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I neither know, nor is it within my responsibility to know, to whom the authors of the document referred. That is not a matter for me. Does the hon. Member for Brent, South wish to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Boateng: No.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 47

RECOVERY ETC. OF GRANTS

Mrs. Roe: I beg to move amendment No. 254, in page 35, line 14, at end insert
`and a direction under paragraph (c) above requiring the payment of any amount may also require the payment of interest on that amount in accordance with subsections (7) to (9) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 255, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
(7) A direction under subsection (2)(c) above requiring the payment of interest on the amount directed to be paid to the Corporation shall specify, in accordance with subsection (9) below,—

(a) the rate or rates of interest (whether fixed or variable) which is or are applicable;
(b) the date from which interest is payable, being not earlier than the date of the relevant event; and
(c) any provision for suspended or reduced interest which is applicable.
(8) In subsection (7)(c) above—

(a) the reference to a provision for suspended interest is a reference to a provision whereby, if the amount which is directed to be paid to the Corporation is paid before a date specified in the direction, no interest will be payable for any period after the date of the direction; and
(b) the reference to a provision for reduced interest is a reference to a provision whereby, if that amount is

so paid, any interest payable will be payable at a rate or rates lower than the rate or rates which would otherwise be applicable.
(9) The matters specified in a direction as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (7) above shall be either—

(a) such as the Corporation, acting in accordance with such principles as it may from time to time determine, may specify as being appropriate, or
(b) such as the Corporation may determine to be appropriate in the particular case.'

Mrs. Roe: The purpose of the amendments is to give the Housing Corporation power to charge interest on repayments of grant directed under the clause. Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State has power to charge interest on payments from grant redemption funds, and under clause 51 that power may be delegated to the corporation.
The provision of a similar power for housing association grant and revenue deficit grant will provide a simple and direct incentive for associations to make prompt repayments of grant.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In itself, the provision is riot undesirable, and it appears logical. However, will the Housing Corporation have to pay interest for late payments of housing grant to housing associations? I hope that there is reciprocity, with interest payable in either direction by anyone who is late making repayments.

Mr. George Howarth: The Minister justified the amendments on the ground that they would simplify the system.

Mr. Tony Banks: She was reading her brief.

Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend suggests, that is what the Minister's brief says.
I am at a loss to understand how anybody could think that the provisions, or anything to do with revenue deficit grant, could be simplified. The amendments will not simplify anything; they will just add another level of complication. It is beyond me how anyone can use the word "simple" about the grant redemption fund and revenue deficit grant. Indeed, if the truth be known, suspect that it is also beyond the Minister.
The amendments need to be examined within the whole context of the Government's approach to housing associations. It is impossible to isolate the amendments —we must refer to a much wider discussion about what the Government expect from the housing associations, what their job has been, is and will be, and their position within the totality of the housing market. We cannot isolate the Bill's provisions and the amendments from the whole of that market. As we cannot consider the provisions without considering other forms of tenure, we should spend some time examining the whole role of housing associations in relation to other tenures.
It is important to analyse the Bill's provisions in the wider context, and I want to know how the Minister envisages the housing associations, their job, their functions——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to understand how this arises under the amendments.

Mr. Howarth: My argument—I saw you take advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I was making it—is that the provisions strike at the very core of the practices and procedures of the housing association movement, and can


be judged only within that context. I shall be guided by your greater wisdom regarding that subject, and I am sure that, if I move too far off the track, you will bring me to order. We cannot isolate those matters from a wider consideration of the housing association movement and its role, as we are dealing with the financing of housing associations. We cannot deal with the role of housing associations without making comparisons with other forms of tenure, including owner-occupation and local authority sector tenure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The proposals relate to the making of grants to housing associations. That is different from the general financing of housing associations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the measure before the House.

Mr. Howarth: I am sure that you will guide me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as I understand it, the provision enables the Government, through the Housing Corporation, and directed by the Secretary of State, to charge interest on any housing association grants that they decide to claw back. That means that the whole basis of housing association finance is affected dramatically by the provision. It therefore appears impossible for the House seriously to consider the Government's proposals without spending a considerable time discussing how that will affect housing association finance in general. Equally——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That would be stretching the amendment far too wide. I am not prepared to allow such a debate.

Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This measure precedes another which will claim back half the grant as well as the interest on it. If housing associations are to have their grant clawed back, the way in which they are financed is central to the debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said. Some Conservative Members, not least an hon. Member who, last night, I recall——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making his point, because he is making a long speech, which I am not prepared to allow. He must not challenge my ruling. We are debating not the clause as a whole but two new provisions and the debate must be confined to them.

Mr. Howarth: I accept your ruling, Sir, although I regret not being able to pursue my argument.

Mr. Boateng: rose——

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boateng: Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect for a moment, giving us the benefit of his considerable experience of these matters, on the impact of the provisions and their implications for the proper administration and the finances of individual housing associations. Am I right in thinking that the measures would affect the viability of some housing associations, particularly those able to meet the special needs of some of the most deprived sections of our community—for example, those that work with the disabled, the elderly or people who are vulnerable in some other way?

Mr. Howarth: I ask you to bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that housing developments are funded through a system called housing association grant. Every housing association, with the exception of some unregistered ones, is financed in that way. That grant is administered by the Housing Corporation. Each scheme receives that grant in respect of its costs.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is valid when we consider that, under this measure, the Government are proposing that housing association grant can be clawed back with interest at the request of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the whole way in which housing associations are administered is being called into question in any transaction into which any housing association could ever enter if financed through the Housing Corporation or, as the Government propose, through a combination of the Housing Corporation and some other financial body. Therefore, each transaction will be affected by the provisions.
11.30 pm
I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my argument that that has a profound and fundamental effect on the system of finance for housing association grants, and therefore for housing associations, because every development within a housing association is funded by that mechanism.
I realise that I shall be skating close to the line in my next argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is justified and I am sure that you will tell me if it is not. If the provisions that affect the funding of that type of tenure are being changed, it seems perfectly valid and reasonable that, when discussing the amendment, we should make comparisons between other types of tenure. At some point, I hope to introduce into my argument some material about interest rates and the funding of other types of tenure so that we can make comparisons between what the Government are proposing in this and in other areas of housing.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that implicit in this Government amendment is the assumption that the Housing Corporation is always right? In fact, there have been cases in which the Housing Corporation has not acted correctly and has materially affected the work of housing associations. For example, it all but closed down the Family Housing Association. Nick Raynsford wrote an interesting book about that, entitled "Quis Custodiet?", and rightly, as that means talking about——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In that case, I merely point out that the amendment has a great bearing on the whole nature of housing associations and their function because it is based on the assumption that the Housing Corporation is always right.

Mr. Howarth: I share my hon. Friend's fears but have an even greater fear. Beyond the Housing Corporation, an even more fearful sight on the horizon is the Secretary of State himself, because it is the Secretary of State who will be empowered by this provision, and the Secretary of State is none other than the man who deregulated the buses. He is the Minister who will be responsible for triggering those mechanisms.
I recall that, shortly after I became a Member, the Secretary of State made an intervention to the effect that when he was the Secretary of State for Transport he had been responsible for deregulating the buses and was still waiting for Opposition Members to thank him for that. At this late date, many months later, I have some news for the right hon. Gentleman. While he is still waiting for thanks from our side of the Chamber, many of our constituents are still waiting for the buses. I make that point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I did not have the opportunity of making it at the time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That point was well worth waiting for. I have an important point on the subject of waiting, which I should have made in my short speech. One problem at the moment is that this provision allows the housing associations to be charged interest. Among the worst offenders in terms of money delayed are the Government. When asked to consent to a measure that would save a lot of money, they sit on the decision for months and sometimes years. Can we be assured that this provision has an equitable parallel and that the Government as well as the Housing Corporation will have to pay after they delay and hold on to money?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting our point. We must make comparisons. It is very much a question of who gets what and to what end it is directed. Housing associations providing particular types of housing may be affected by this measure. Part of their grant may be recalled by the Secretary of State and they may be asked to pay interest.

Mr. Battle: Would my hon. Friend like to ask the Minister how much the Government expect to save on the interest repayments? Might not that amount, small though it is, be much less than the business expansion scheme grants given in the Budget? Might it not make such a financial difference that small housing associations become bankrupt and unable to develop and deliver schemes?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes the point well. The Minister for Housing and Planning is reading a book that does not appear to have much to do with this debate —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is looking at mugshots, but I am sure that he has noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). In due course, the hon. Gentleman will come up with figures, which probably will not satisfy us.

Mr. Boateng: We want to hear from the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Lady has the figures on the tip of her tongue. Given her experience in Finland last week, she may well sing them to us rather than speak in her normal dulcet tones.
As the Minister knows, the types of housing association services which are funded by housing association grants are many and varied.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend's experience of housing associations is very valuable. Does he agree that, because of the extent to which some housing associations will be financially penalised, life will be that much more difficult for families who cannot be rehoused by their local authority and cannot obtain a mortgage? Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems of overcrowding and

homelessness will therefore be that much worse? The amendments direct our attention to the housing difficulties.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a good point; I would go one step further. When the Bill was published, the Merseyside Federation of Housing Associations, a subsidiary of the National Federation of Housing Associations, said that its ability to continue to provide housing for people in need in areas of high cost and low value would be curtailed and the recent housing benefit changes would exacerbate the problem.
The type of people my hon. Friends and I have in mind —families in need who are not catered for by local authorities and who are unable to obtain mortgages, a subject to which I shall return on later amendments—are often precisely those whom housing associations can assist by way of tenancies. This is especially so for households without an economically active member, and for the elderly. The changes in housing association finance will directly affect that category, whose plight will be exacerbated by the latest Government proposals.

Mr. Winnick: Perhaps we are witnessing a deliberate attempt by the Government to drive as many people as possible into the privately rented sector. Clearly, the Government are not concerned with local authority tenancies; most local authorities such as mine have not been able to build council accommodation for eight or nine years. Now, because there is to be no distinction in rent levels—because housing associations will have to charge much higher rents—it must be the aim of the Government to provide profit for private landlords by encouraging people to enter the privately rented sector. The splendid work being done by genuine housing associations will be undermined.

Mr. Howarth: I agree, and the Minister has proclaimed frequently and with pleasure that he supports the concept of the privately rented sector. Indeed, that is an essential part of the Bill. My hon. Friends and I have said time and again that we are not opposed to responsible private landlords. While I would not accuse the Minister of State of wishing to promote Victorian-type landlordism, I fear that the Secretary of State believes that there are lessons to be learned from colourful pictures of the landlords of those days evicting widows and children. Perhaps he would like to return to those days.
Many housing associations deal sensitively and effectively with the needs of the elderly, and some associations in Merseyside specialise in building bungalows and sheltered accommodation, with wardens and security devices, for the elderly and needy. These associations are often small and deal with the specific needs of the elderly people in a locality. The amendment empowers the Secretary of State to charge interest. Because of the criticism from this side of the House, the Secretary of State has declined to stay; I understand that he has gone for a fag. If I had realised that, I might have got someone to make a long intervention so that I could join him.
11.45 pm
The Secretary of State will have power to claw back the grants and to charge interest to these small, sensitive housing associations. The Minister and his colleagues may ask, what is wrong with that? They may think that, if the


Government pay a grant, they are entitled to claw it back and to charge interest into the bargain. It would be with great reluctance that I gave the Secretary of State power to have anything to do with these small, sensitive, local housing associations which are dealing with the needs of the elderly. On a dark night, some of the elderly people might be frightened if they were to see the spectre of the Secretary of State haunting their sheltered schemes. When the Secretary of State has not had a fag for a long time, he may not be a welcome sight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we are discussing interest charges. Perhaps he will return to that.

Mr. Howarth: I know that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Secretary of State is mentioned in the amendment. The Secretary of State is the person responsible for triggering the mechanism whereby the housing association grant may be clawed back and interest may be charged. So I mention him simply in the context that he is a central part of the process. However, I will be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The future financial basis of the schemes could be affected by the Government amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) and I have in our constituencies a unique housing co-operative. The amendment would apply to housing co-operatives as well as to housing associations. Housing co-operatives are housing associations but with a slightly different legal form. This is a unique organisation called the Huyton community co-operative for the elderly, which was funded by the Housing Corporation and could be affected by this provision.
Various local people serve on that co-operative. It exists to provide a good standard of housing for elderly people in the Huyton area of Knowsley. It has built 24 units of accommodation in Huyton. On 5 July, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is to present a design award for that scheme. The future tenants—the elderly people who had retired from work and who had much experience of life—were able to influence the design of the scheme. The architect, Bill Halsall, a good friend of mine, is to be congratulated. He is not here; had he known that I would mention him, he might have come to hear the debate.

Mr. Roland Boyes: We would like to know more about him.

Mr. Howarth: I will do as my hon. Friend asks, because as the architect of a scheme that may be affected by the amendment, his involvement is relevant. He will be very upset if the management of that scheme could be prejudiced by the Secretary of State deciding in his wisdom —if he ever exercises such a thing—to charge the housing association interest.
Bill Halsall was also the architect of the very first new build housing co-operative in the country, Weller street. It too could be affected. As my hon. Friend asks me to say more about Bill Halsall, I shall tell the House that he was one of the real pioneers of such developments—not just one of the people we hear about who hold high office in the Royal Institute of British Architects. Bill Halsall pioneered community architecture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though that may be, it has no connection with amendment No. 254, to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will now address himself.

Mr. Howarth: Perhaps I may explain the logic of my argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be guided by you, if you think it is inappropriate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps asking for my guidance but just as regularly ignores it. I hope that for once he will take account of it.

Mr. Howarth: I shall try to keep my remarks to a line of argument that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will find acceptable.
Bill Halsall was the original architect of a co-operative scheme and of the Huyton community co-operative, both of which may be affected by the amendments. He will be interested in any financial changes affecting those schemes, both of which are the subject of design awards. One has already been given an award by the Royal Institute of British Architects, while the Huyton community co-operative for the elderly is to receive an award on 5 July. I have been invited to attend on that occasion, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South. He is not present in the Chamber, but would wish to be associated with my remarks.
I shall make no further reference to Bill Halsall but rather to his work.

Mr. Boyes: I regret intervening——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair and not turn his back to it.

Mr. Boyes: I say, "Hear, hear," to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It offers a much preferable view.
I regret the fact that my hon. Friend is leaving the subject of Bill Halsall.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to leave the subject of Mr. Halsall.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend's comments concerning Mr. Halsall relate to my interest in this amendment. M

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we may return to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Boyes: I was attempting to return my hon. Friend directly to the subject matter of the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already performed the function of returning the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) to the subject matter of the amendments.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for attempting, along with yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to steer me in the direction of the amendments, which are of great concern to both the Huyton and the Weller street co-operatives. I shall decline to mention any architect, other than to remark that there is a whole gaggle of community architects—if that is the right term—or a whole collection of them. There is a collection of community architects in the Merseyside area, some of them very distinguished, who are too many to mention. Many of them will be concerned about the amendments because they have been responsible for schemes which will


be directly affected. That is the point that I was trying to make. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I recognise your forbearance in allowing me to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South made a spirited and eloquent speech earlier in which he referred to the concerns of the black community and the schemes that housing associations may or may not bring forward to deal with them. He also mentioned, in passing, the role of specialist black and Asian housing associations.
By their very nature, those associations are small. They do not have a wide asset base and they often sensitively provide housing services for black and Asian people. Housing associations that work particularly with the black community provide a good standard of housing in circumstances where there is often no other choice.
Reference was made earlier to Tower Hamlets and other such areas. I am sure you will intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am out of order, but I am serving on the Committee considering the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Howarth: I was merely going on to point out that part of that redevelopment of the Spitalfields market site involves the construction of 118 houses that will be divided between local housing associations, one of which—which brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South—I understand, is the Spitalfields housing co-operative.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman just asked for my advice and I have offered it to him. Now he is ignoring it. The Bill is in Committee and it would be quite improper for the hon. Gentleman to pursue the line that he is currently pursuing.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not pursue that point.
My hon. Friend's point was that some housing associations specifically deal with particular ethnic groups, such as the Asian community in Bradford or in one of the Yorkshire cities, or the Afro-Caribbean communities in some of our inner cities.
Will the Minister, or better still, the Secretary of State, if he finishes his fag in time, assure us that he will not at some future date claw back grants of housing associations that deal with the specific needs of black members of the community and charge them interest into the bargain? That would be a dreadful thing to happen. I shall give way to the Minister if she will assure me that those housing associations dealing with black and Asian people will not be penalised by the devide that the Government have brought before the House.

Mr. Battle: There is an example in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is supporting the Government's policy on housing associations: a housing association project for young homeless black people. That housing association—the Unity housing association—is tiny, and if the interest is clawed back from its budget it will not be able to continue to provide housing for homeless blacks in an inner-city stress area in the constituency of a Conservative Member.

12 midnight

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has illustrated very well the point that I was trying to make. I cannot add much to what he has said, other than hat I expect no less from him than to steer the House ——

Mr. John Cummings: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: May I just finish praising my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)? He accompanied me, and other Opposition Members, through three and a half months of the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill—at which time, I must add, these amendments were not discussed. I see that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is in his seat. I have listened many times to his eloquent remarks on the Bill. While no doubt he agrees with these measures, he will confirm that the amendments were not brought forward at the proper time.
Let me return to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. Burning the midnight oil, he often puts the Government on the rack with great precision, and he has done it again tonight.

Mr. Cummings: My hon. Friend mentioned ethnic minorities such as Afro-Caribbeans. Would he care to reflect on an ethnic minority in the county of Durham—the Durham aged mineworkers? The Durham aged mineworkers housing association is a charitable association founded 100 years ago and funded by the pennies from miners' pay packets, earned from the pit point. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would be a tragedy if the interest that has accrued to that account were clawed back by the Secretary of State, whose forefathers have a vested interest in coal mining in Northumberland and Durham and whose fortune was made from the same pit point that provided the finances for the aged mineworkers?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's considerable local knowledge, and his concern for the Durham aged mineworkers' housing association and the retired miners living in housing controlled by what sounds like a splendid body, make his point. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who is sitting on the Front Bench, is a member of the organisation. I am bound to say that he does not look much like an aged mineworker to me, although I stand to be corrected. I shall say only that he seems to be taking very well to the night shift, which may suggest that at some stage he wielded a shovel below ground.

Mr. Boyes: No.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend says no. I shall not go into what he may have wielded below ground, because I am not sure whether the House would like to share that knowledge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington made a good point. At some point in future—I do not know when—are we to witness the horrible spectacle of the Secretary of State for the Environment carrying out some kind of ancestral vendetta? I can just see the glee on the Secretary of State's face as he stands at the Dispatch Box, probably in reply to a private notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, trying to justify why he is


charging the Durham aged mineworkers housing association interest. What a terrible prospect. What a mind-blowing event that would be.
With all humility I must state that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington has told me that he has never toiled below ground. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington has toiled below ground. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is sitting on my left—topographically speaking—has worked underground. In the fulness of time, as his parliamentary career passes its autumn stage, he may seek accommodation from the Durham aged mineworkers housing association or the Yorkshire equivalent—if there is such a body in Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend may decide to spend the twilight of his years recovering from the damage to his body caused by the time that he spent underground—not in this place, I hasten to add—and he might seek the help of the Durham aged mineworkers housing association for accommodation. He may settle happily in one of the association's cottages with his wife—his children will presumably have left home by then. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is on the edge of his seat and is obviously keen to tell me of his expectations about the Durham aged mineworkers association, although he may have other things on his mind.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley becomes a tenant at some point in the future of the—all together now—Durham aged mineworkers housing association, will we see the ghost of the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box saying that the Government will charge the association interest?

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: With his fag.

Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend says, with his fag. The smoke may smell rather strange because by then he will be in another realm. However, that is another story.

Mr. Barron: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: The shame at the prospect of his old age has caused my hon. Friend to intervene.

Mr. Barron: Although I do not want to delay the debate. I want to state, as both a son and a grandson of Durham miners, that I think it likely that the family of the Secretary of State for the Environment at some time received some of the wealth created by my forefathers in the Durham coalfields, where they worked for many years before they had to move down to Yorkshire. Perhaps the Secretary of State owes the debt to me and not I to him. As he stands at the Dispatch Box, he should think about giving back some of the coal royalties to the Durham aged mineworkers housing association instead of taking any more money from it in his capacity as Secretary of State.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a point, about which he had pondered hard. For some five minutes I hoped that he would rise to speak, knowing his great expertise on houses for miners, and he did.
I may return to miners' housing and black and Asian housing, but now I turn to housing for general family needs. Many housing associations provide housing for that purpose, and associations on Merseyside and other

deprived inner-city areas—and outer-city areas; there is activity in my constituency in outer areas—have traditionally provided housing of a high standard for groups of people in housing need. It is exceedingly well managed and finances have been generous under housing association grants, but they need to be able to plan ahead in order to assure the future of their tenants. Knowing that the Secretary of State may say, "I am clawing back your grant and charging you interest," how can an organisation plan ahead?
Earlier today in the other place I celebrated the 10th anniversary of Merseyside Improved Housing, which is a fine body. Its chief executive, Barry Natton, is a great friend of mine. I know that the Minister, and I think the Under-Secretary of State, have met him, and I am sure that they will agree that he is a fine man. I had a vol-au-vent and a glass of orange juice, which I thought wise, knowing that I would probably address the House later. Today that body manages more than 20,000 properties. I have not counted them recently, as they are spread throughout Merseyside and I might have difficulty doing so. Will it be greeted some day by the Secretary of State saying, "I am calling in some of your housing association grants and charging you interest."?

Mr. Allan McKay: Nobody has mentioned Airey housing, of which the Minister is fully aware. Government policy caused housing associations to step in and replace those houses. The Government removed capital grants, so housing associations had to step in. Airey housing is in the most vulnerable areas and as it is open to the elements when it is being built, it takes longer to build. If the Secretary of State claws back the interest on the money lent to replace the substandard property, that will automatically increase rents in those deserted areas. The policy all along has been completely wrong.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend demonstrates his detailed knowledge of Airey housing. He points out that this provision could make a bad problem even worse and certainly could drive up rent levels, resulting in other unintended consequences.

Mr. Cummings: Does my hon. Friend agree that the power that the Secretary of State has returned to himself for clawing back interest rates and surpluses could be regarded as robbing charity? Many housing associations, such as the Anchor housing association, are registered as charities. Is it the Minister's intention to rob charities?

Mr. Howarth: The Secretary of State is not here because he does not like the criticism that my hon. Friend and others are meting out. A glance at the right hon. Gentleman's countenance, however, would suggest that he is the sort of man who would like to take money from charities by claiming interest rates. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will ask why he is taking money from charitable organisations and at the same time charging them interest. That is a disgraceful prospect.

Mr. Boyes: I intend to read my hon. Friend's speech to my management committee—that will save my hon. Friend the bother of travelling from Knowsley to Houghton and Washington. My committee will be


particularly interested in the references to me toiling with a shovel. There are miners here who spent many hours underground——

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman address the House rather than his colleagues?

Mr. Boyes: On a previous occasion, I was asked to address the Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber as long as me, he would understand the matter. He should not think that there is any credit due to him in Darlington. What I am saying is of great significance to the people of Darlington, which is part of County Durham, who live in the type of housing that we are discussing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is making a superb speech, which is appreciated by all except the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). He does not understand it, because he has missed three hours of the debate. There is a lot more to come. My hon. Friend is just on his preamble; that is why I am getting my question in now, because I am on the morning shift.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets his question in quick, because he is making a long speech of it.

Mr. Boyes: I am not making a speech; I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Darlington, who is showing no interest in the Bill except to interrupt proceedings.
Subsection 7(a) states:
the rate or rates of interest (whether Fixed or variable) which is or are applicable.
My hon. Friend has been discussing planning, budgeting and rent levels. How can such things be determined unless there is some guidance in clause 47 or elsewhere in the Bill? How are the interest rates to be determined? They could be determined at any level.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boyes: It is in order to refer to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can be out of order by making an over-long intervention.

Mr. Boyes: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps he will let his hon. Friend reply to his question.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has raised an issue that I had not intended to discuss until later, but I have with me an article by Christopher Huhne that appeared in The Guardian on 1 June. The article is entitled "Stopping price boom before it ends in tears". It is difficult to get across the point of the article without reading it all out, but it makes a crucial point about interest rates, which was the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington referred. I shall try to explain how it is relevant to the amendment. It is not long, and I should get through it in 10 or 15 minutes:
Britain's housing boom is now so out of hand that the surge in prices is beginning to swamp whatever other economic decisions most households make. It is common, for example, for home owners in the South-east to find that their capital gains——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before he proceeds any further, the hon. Gentleman must assure me that this is relevant to the amendments. On the strength of that assurance, I shall allow him to proceed.

Mr. Howarth: The article is relevant, in that it discusses the economic consequences of interest charges—the issue raised by my hon. Friend——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What causes me anxiety is not that the article contains a passage about interest rates, which might be relevant, but that a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman proposes to read out might not be relevant to the amendments. If he assures me that the article is relevant, I shall allow him to proceed, but I very much hope that he is not misleading me.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No point of order arises.

Mr. Howarth: The article deals with interest charges. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you think that I read too far without getting to them, I am sure you will stop me. It builds up a logical sequence of argument. I genuinely seek not to abuse your understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you feel that I do, I am sure you will tell me so.
This situation
makes a mockery of the incentives economy. The need for restraint is urgent.
One consequence is the reviving interest in credit controls, however difficult they are to justify in conventional liberal terms. If the Government's own finances are in balance and it is therefore making no contribution to credit growth, why should the authorities presume to dictate what borrowers and lenders freely agree?
This is the point: there is an interesting relationship between borrowers and lenders.
The answer, of course, is that supervision is necessary on macro-economic grounds, but that is a Keynesian reply. We are all demand managers now.
In general, though, policy makers should not fret too much about the growth of credit. The reality is that there is no stable relationship between broad money and total spending, even in the long run. There is no economic evidence per se to suggest that credit growth is inflationary. Indeed, there are several reasons for supposing that the increase in the amount of credit (and hence, broad money) compared with national income over the last decade is the product of several underlying if unpredictable, factors.
The first was the removal of direct controls on credit as the financial system was progressively liberalised. The second was the intense competition between banks and building societies for a share of the new market.
The third factor, highlighted in work by Professsor Marcus Miller, is the reduction of the spread—the bank or building society's profit—between the interest rates paid on deposits and the interest rate charged to lenders. That spread is a key determinant of borrowers' willingness to borrow. The extreme case arises if someone can borrow and then on-lend in other markets at even higher rates, in which case there is art explosion of credit. That opportunity—so called round-tripping—has occasionally arisen for companies. Normally, of course, borrowing costs are higher than deposit rates However, the narrower the spread between deposit and. lending rates, the less the cost of having easy access to money (liquidity) and the greater the likelihood that people borrow merely for the convenience of being more liquid. Clearly, the more competitive environment because of financial liberalisation has reduced spreads, which in turn helps the credit balloon. It does not necessarily have any macro-economic effects.
Why then should we now be worried about the personal credit explosion? Essentially, it is because there is clear evidence that it is not merely a financial phenomenon, but is


spilling over into asset prices and hence is likely to boost consumption at a time when imports are already soaring and the current account going sharply into deficit. The danger, as this column argued on February 3, is that without some direct controls on lending, a self-feeding bubble of credit and rising house prices which provide collateral for more credit will get wholly out of hand.
The latest quarterly analysis"—

Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been more than tolerant with the House. [Interruption.] I submit that a discussion on the amendment about interest and interest payments relates to interest on a grant under clause 47 of the Bill and has no bearing whatever on any interest that might or might not be paid on loans. That is what the hon. Gentleman is discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is right in general.

Mr. Battle: He is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for my judgment. I regret that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) did not have regard to the point that I put to him before he embarked on this long quotation. I regret that he seems to have misled me. I hope that he will now address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Boyes: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. George Howarth.

Mr. Howarth: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyes: I should like to help my hon. Friend to stay in order. I have listened to what he has said. I asked in my intervention whether the rate or rates of interest, whether fixed or variable, could be determined by the Secretary of State without defining in the Bill the level at which rates of interest can be set. My understanding from the article that my hon. Friend has read to the House is that the Secretary of State is quite free to set the rate at whatever level he wishes. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that. The Under-Secretary of State does not intervene to say that that is incorrect.
That means that housing associations and other such bodies cannot possibly plan and determine rent levels. That is because the Secretary of State might set a variable rate of interest that could vary in the short and long term by large amounts. Despite what Christopher Huhne says, that gap can be narrower or wider——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, not for the first time in the debate, that interventions must be brief.

Mr. Howarth: Perhaps I could ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is my contention that the housing association borrows given amounts of money and gets spending power from the Housing Corporation. Out of the rent collected, a given amount of housing association grant is paid back towards the loan for the properties. Therefore, housing association grant is also a loan. The article from which I was quoting deals with interest charges and also with the competitive market for loans. In that context, I

think that the article is relevant. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would care to listen, they will find that the article is educative.

Mr. Battle: Does my hon. Friend agree that housing association projects are presently funded by housing association grant and by a residual mortgage loan? That is why, from a sedentary position, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that he was wrong. If he does not understand the financing of housing associations, that is his responsibility, and he should look into it. The funding is made up of a combination of grant and loan, and that is why the interest rate is important. It may be that it is a loan from a local authority or from the Housing Corporation, but it is a joint structure of financing, and the interest rates are important.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has explained it well.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been doing his level best to explain the point about the loans, the interest, the grants and everything else. It can be compared with the debts of the Third world, which has loans and grants, but it cannot pay back the money. It then pays a bit off the capital, or if it cannot manage that, it pays a bit off the interest.
My hon. Friend might turn his attention to another point—how could those housing associations calculate what proportion is made up of interest, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having a row with the Prime Minister about the interest rates pushing up the bank rate one day, bringing it down another, and then pushing it back up again? It is forecast that tomorrow it will go up again. They must have problems when they do not know how to calculate whether it is 8, 8·5, 9, 9·5 or 10 per cent. The suggestion has been made that by the end of this year, the interest rate will be well into double figures —perhaps the highest lending rate ever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the amendments that are before the House?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a point that is illuminating. The Government not only have the power to claw back those grants but—this is the other point—the little operation that takes place from time to time between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, in which the whole world shares, may also influence the matter. I hazard a guess that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has some knowledge of the subject. It may be that my hon. Friend, who has a shrewd nose for the difficulties that the Government from time to time experience, has got wind—[Interruption.] That might explain why he has left the Chamber. My hon. Friend might have some knowledge that there is about to be another disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has rejoined us. So far, his remarks have all been made from a sedentary position, but perhaps, he might intervene and make some points that we might be interested in; otherwise, perhaps he will cease making snide remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) looks rather tired, so we will leave him alone. On


the interesting point made by my hon. Friend for the Member for Bolsover on the interest charges, would my hon. Friend remind us of the second paragraph of the article in The Guardian, as he read the article too quickly? He will remember that that passage refers to the manner in which interest charges were fluctuating, which is relevant to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend listened intently. I had not actually reached the end of that article. It continued:
The third factor, highlighted in work by Professor Marcus Miller, is the reduction of the spread—the bank or building society's profit—between the interest rates paid on deposits and the interest rate charged to lenders. That spread is a key determinant to borrowers' willingness to borrow. An extreme case arises if someone can borrow and then on-lend in other markets at even higher rates, in which case there is an explosion of credit. That opportunity—so called 'round tripping'—has occasionally arisen for companies.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend read the next paragraph as well?

Mr. Howarth: I do not want to move on to the next paragraph ——

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend is making one of the most brilliant speeches that I have heard in this place. I am sure that when I read it out at my constituency meeting there will be stupendous cheering and clapping. That is why I want to clarify a tricky point. I realise that tonight my hon. Friend has had to deal with difficult mathematics, statistics and economics, but he has presented them with great clarity——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is not a Committee, but I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Boyes: I want to explain how I know that we are on Report, just in case anyone reading the report of the debate thinks that I am on the wrong theme.
When I speak to my general management committee, it will want to know whether it is possible for the rates of interest charged to be well above the bank interest rate and even above the rate mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Even if the rate rises to double figures—perhaps the 12·5 to 15 per cent. suggested by my hon. Friend—the Secretary of State could still level a variable rate of interest much higher than that. That would make planning and rent level determination impossible.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend rightly suggests that the Bill would allow that to happen. I am sure that he will not only report my speech, but speak at length about the matter to his general management committee.
The Secretary of State declines to sit and listen to criticism. He is not only the judge!and the jury but the hangman. He might be responsible for clawing back money from the Durham aged mineworkers housing association while charging it interest into the bargain. That interest might be set not at bank interest rate, but at a level that he determines. Given his background, he may decide to act out some sort of ancestral punishment on the miners of Durham, based on that provision.

Mr. Bob Clay: An illustration of my hon. Friend's point is that housing co-operatives that

bought ex-Coal Board property cannot understand why they are forced to increase their rents to themselves above what is necessary simply so that the rents become the same as comparable rents in the private sector or for council property. They have to do that to achieve the maximum interest rates for those who lent them the money. They can be forced to do that up to the fair rent level, when they could have charged themselves less. That is bad enough, but if the Secretary of State fixes the interest rate it will be horrendous.

Mr. Howarth: I referred earlier to housing co-operatives, which will be confronted with the inevitable upward hike of rents as a result of the Bill when it is enacted, although it is unnecessary for them to raise rents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said. They have sufficient money to manage their repairs. They have cyclical maintenance and management allowances, yet they do most of the management themselves.

Mr. Skinner: Actuarially they are sound.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend uses the words that members of the accountancy profession would use. I understand that he is acquainted with that profession, although one step removed from it.
The housing co-operatives do not need to raise rents, yet, at the behest of the Secretary of State in these provisions, their rents will inevitably rise and the consequences will be felt unnecessarily in the pockets of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, simply because the Secretary of State got out of bed the wrong side that morning and decided to dabble with interest rates.

Mr. Skinner: I hope that my hon. Friend is not seriously suggesting that the Secretary of State will fix interest rates. If so, I would argue the case against him. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has the time to be pottering about. He might just give a nod and a wink to some junior official in his Department to get on with the job, while he spends his time protesting about people wanting to build in his own back yard. "Not in my back yard," says the Secretary of State. He allows everyone else to roam all over the green belt, yet he tries to stop people building in his own back yard.
Is my hon. Friend seriously telling the House that the Secretary of State has time to fix interest rates when the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know what they will be from day to day because the Prime Minister has not told him? That is just too fanciful for words. I want my hon. Friend to deal with facts. We should talk straight. A tinpot junior official will have to do that job within the general parameters of what the Secretary of State has to say. That is what I think.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has given us an insight into the daily life of the Secretary of State and his concerns. The Minister of State appears to have gone off for a sleep and left his Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Skinner: She could not sleep in that frock.

Mr. Howarth: That may be so.
The Secretary of State is spending his time ensuring that the builders build not in his back yard, but in everyone else's back yard, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North and perhaps in my own


area. In addition, the press tells us that he has the Minister of State on daily report to explain why, for example, when the Bill was in Committee, it did not go quite as the Secretary of State wanted it to go. The Secretary of State is fighting battles in all corners of his party, some of which he is winning while losing others. I am not sure whether he will have time to give his full and undivided attention to interest charges.
The canvas has been filled in a little more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister are having some difficulty in agreeing on that matter. The Secretary of State is not present. He has left the Chamber yet again, perhaps having anticipated my hon. Friend's intervention. If the Secretary of State has his hand on that set of economic levers, that does not leave me with any confidence that he will ever make a sensible decison in future—or, indeed, any decision at all.
12.45 am
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover on only one point. The Secretary of State seems to want the powers. It may well be that at some future date, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes off to a better paid job in the City—we read from time to time that that is what he is angling for—and perhaps when the Minister of State goes on to better things, or sideways or down, and the Prime Minister retires—some say that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or others, such as the Foreign Secretary, may find themselves sitting in her seat—when all those things happen and when houses are built in the constituencies of my hon. Friends but not in the Secretary of State's back yard—the right hon. Gentleman has won that battle—this provision may still be at his disposal and he will start to use it. That is the danger as we see it.

Mr. Skinner: It has just crossed my mind that there is another scenario, and I should like my hon. Friend to turn his attention to it. Why should the Secretary of State concern himself with variables, such as interest rates and loan charges, when he has no need to do so? I shall tell my hon. Friend why. It is because this Secretary of State prides himself on being the retrospective record holder Secretary of State. He has brought in more retrospective legislation in the short period that he has been a Minister than any other Minister I have known.
I think that the Secretary of State's scenario is, "Let them potter and worry about the interest rates. I shall not because I can always come to the House of Commons and tell my Back Benchers to stand on their heads because we did it the wrong way. I can ask them to turn upside down and to vote the other way so that I can bring in retrospective legislation." They have been dummies for him several times already, so I reckon that that is his plan. The Secretary of State will not worry about the interest rates because he will bring in retrospective legislation to cover his tracks if he makes a mistake.

Mr. Howarth: I suspect that my hon. Friend has got the point about interest rates slightly wrong, and I will tell the House why. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State is the all-time greatest retrospective legislator in this place, and certainly in the previous Parliament——

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: In a moment, but I am still dealing with the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I think that I owe it to him to satisfy the points that he made, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have done so.
My hon. Friend is right so far as his point about retrospective legislation goes, but one must ask why the Secretary of State is a retrospective legislator. It is because he gets it wrong so often. The difficulty is that the Secretary of State may get it wrong and then go in for retrospective legislation, but, if he has got it wrong, all the housing associations, including the Durham aged mineworkers housing association, could be the victims of his mistakes. I give way now to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick).

Mr. Patnick: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not make himself very clear. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will give way so that his hon. Friend can explain a little more and I can follow every word?

Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knew the intention behind his intervention. I am glad that I did not share any of his outlook, because his point escapes me entirely.
I should like to proceed with the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is starting to form some idea about what he might want to say on this important subject. The Secretary of State is trying to keep in line the Minister for Housing and Planning, who no doubt will be here on Report at 9 o'clock in the morning. It must be difficult for the Secretary of State to keep the hon. Gentleman in line, given that their views do not always converge.

Mr. Tim Devlin: He has not resigned yet.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position. He must have some forewarning of the Minister's intentions. The Minister may be so fed up with the Bill—which he has never denied is a mess—that he is about to resign.

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Howarth: I give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has sat down again. Perhaps he has not quite formed his ideas.
Some of my hon. Friends would argue that the Minister should resign. This Bill, for which he has been responsible and which has been virtually rewritten "on the hoof"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hoof?"] Other hon. Members obviously went to a different school and pronounce it differently. This Bill is such a dog's breakfast that some hon. Members think that the Minister should resign.

Mr. Devlin: On the contrary, the Bill is such an excellent piece of legislation and has had such excellent steering that the only way I can see my hon. Friend the Minister leaving his post is when he goes to a higher Government post.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not talking about which Minister is in which post. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is allowing himself to be distracted. He keeps talking about "this Bill"; I hope that he will return to "this amendment."

Mr. Howarth: Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Howarth: I give way.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not of some interest that, although Conservative Members have constantly lectured us on the need for housing associations—saying why there was no need for local authority dwellings and why housing associations could fulfil that task—they do not seem to have any enthusiasm to speak to the amendment to which my hon. Friend has directed his attention throughout his speech? Clearly, the amendment will result in much harm to the financial position of these organisations.

Mrs. Roe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister shakes her head, but she must answer the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and to be made by others, including me, who have yet to speak. It is interesting that Conservative Members show no interest in coming to the defence of the housing associations, the very organisations on which they are supposed to be so keen.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes the point well. Our difficulty is that the hon. Member for Stockton, South and his colleagues from time to time stand up and say, "This is a good Bill and we support it." But they decline to say why they support it or what is good about it.

Mr. Ian McCartney: When we last debated the Bill the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) harangued the Minister about the way in which he was handling the detail of the measure. But a little later, when my hon. Friends made precisely the same criticism of the Minister and divided the House, the hon. Gentleman went into the Lobby in support of the Minister. I am wondering why the hon. Gentleman is present tonight and why he is not making a valid contribution on how the Bill will affect Stockton, South.

Hon. Members: Answer. [Interruption.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Conservative Members to make remarks about the height or size of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches? I distinctly heard references to the size of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I regard that as disgraceful, and I would be grateful for a ruling from you on that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Howarth: Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will agree that the size of my hon. Friend's contribution has little to do with his stature.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order. I seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not the first time that odious remarks have been made about the proportions of my stomach, and so on. If Conservative

Members want to have a go at me, I shall be happy to debate with them the issues of the Bill, but I beg you to protect me from their sizeist remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well able to look after himself. The point that he makes is not really a point of order.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Stockton, South asserted that this is a good Bill. I recall that, with few exceptions, Conservative Members sat through the Committee stage without uttering a word. On a memorable occasion one of them—I forget who—produced a graph and lectured us about a supply and demand curve displayed on it.

Mr. McCartney: I can help my hon. Friend. The Member in question was the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). After spending about an hour and a half trying to explain the graph to us, two men in white coats came in and took him away, and he has not been seen since.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will not allow himself to be distracted from the amendment that is before the House.

1 am

Mr. Howarth: I would not dream of speculating on who the two men in white coats were, apart from pointing out that I think I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asking for two choc ices.
For three and a half months the amendment was not supported by the Government. No Government Back Bencher or Minister ever stood up to say that this was something they should do. Now we find that the Government wish to give further powers to the Secretary of State—a man for whom many of us on this side do riot have much regard and of whose intentions we are fearful. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover gave an interesting analysis of the Secretary of State's locus in this.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) treated us to the display of a graph which he could not explain and which we could not understand. Perhaps the Minister could explain the relevance of the graph. Was the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding giving us a glimpse of what was to come in the amendments? Was the graph related to the Bill? Perhaps the Minister should explain.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps it dealt with interest rates.

Mr. Howarth: The graph must have had what economists call an exogenous influence on interest rates.

Mr. Tony Banks: It was erogenous.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend says it was erogenous. I will not go into that. Obviously he knows more about it.
The graph must have had something to do with interest charges. Perhaps the Secretary of State should, with the aid of the graph which was used in Committee—against the advice of the Clerks, I might add, because it could not be put in Hansard——

Mr. Winnick: This is all very interesting, but even more relevant are the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the article in The Guardian. I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I am criticising him, but, when he read out the earlier


part of the article, he summarised rather quickly the other parts to which I am referring. Therefore, will my hon. Friend refer back to the parts of The Guardian article which dealt with interest rates? He summarised them so quickly that I do not think the House appreciated the point he was making at the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to read the other paragraphs which are relevant to the amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) were to do so at length, he would be bordering on tedious repetition.

Mr. Howarth: Nothing is further from my mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If I may help my hon. Friend, I have found two shorter paragraphs which do not repeat what I said earlier and which may be guidance to him. These are from an article in The Guardian of 1 June 1988. These paragraphs may help my hon. Friends who were concerned about housing for people who are unemployed. The article says:
There are probably two reasons why British house prices do not fall in money terms. The first is that there is little rental market (unlike in the Netherlands or Belgium) so that people cannot simply treat their home like any other asset and sell at the top of the market to buy shares while renting instead.
The second is that the Government's arrangement for paying the mortgages of people who have become unemployed are, by international standards, relatively generous. Even in the 1979–81 recession, there was little distress selling and hence no nominal price falls. When the market slows, sellers merely stay put, prices mark time until earnings catch up, and the amount of buying and selling dries up.
Those points may be of assistance to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—even if I have incurred the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: I cannot let my hon. Friend get away with quoting articles from The Guardian, which anyway tend to favour the sloppy Liberals most of the time. That article makes no reference to the remarkable regional variations to which we all know that house values are subject. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) wants the facts, minus the graph, he should pay attention to the way in which property values vary in the north, Scotland, Wales, the south of England, and in the commuter territories.
He should note also the way in which house values are increasing in Grantham, Newark and Retford. I mention Grantham even though the shop in which the Prime Minister was born has gone bankrupt. I do not know whether that was caused by the interest charges based on regional variations, but that business has gone bang. It is dusty and scruffy inside. It is worth anybody having a look at it. I gave a speech to the Grantham Labour party a few weeks ago and made a special visit to those premises. The business there was one of the 150,000 company liquidations and bankruptcies which have taken place——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is long enough for an intervention.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for opening up a new vista. Regional differences in property prices are a matter of great concern. Last week, I gave a

speech in Norfolk—perhaps on the same night as that of my hon. Friend—and was told that in some parts of that county house prices have quadrupled because they are within striking distance of central London.
Young people working locally there earn far less than they would in London, and they are unable to enter the housing market in parts of Norfolk because prices are geared to London, not to local salaries and wages.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. To the extent that there are such fluctuations, in many parts of the country buying a house is beyond the reach even of people on average earnings, let alone those who earn less. Given that the number of local authority dwellings being built is almost nil, there is all the more reason why we should protect genuine housing associations. The two amendments will financially harm people in desperate need who cannot obtain a mortgage and who, like people in my own constituency, cannot be rehoused by the local authority. Such people—who are a matter of concern at least to my hon. Friends—will be in even worse difficulties, and will be unable to afford market rents in the private sector.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has managed to draw the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover about regional variations back to the amendment. This will have an effect on housing associations, which may also be affected by the Secretary of State clawing back housing association grant and charging interest into the bargain.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making an important speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to variations between Scotland and the regions of England. I have been looking at the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and I think that I have found the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings).
There appears to be no provision for a clawback of, or the charging of interest on, housing association grant to be imposed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the proposed Scottish Homes organisation. The answer might be for the Durham aged mineworkers housing association to register itself as a housing association in Scotland and thereby avoid running the risk of a clawback and interest charges. There may be a loophole here, from which my hon. Friend could benefit.

Mr. Howarth: Just as the Government are writing the legislation on the hoof, to use the pronunciation of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South —that seems to be the form adopted by the BBC—my hon. Friends and I, perhaps on the other hoof, as it were, are finding the loopholes as we go along. It may well be——

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has not suggested a loophole, but rather dangerously given the Scottish Ministers a nod and a wink to end a benefit to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) should get on with the variations in regions other than Scotland and not give the Government any more chances. They will probably seize on this. The Chief Whip has a grin as broad as a Cheshire cat. He is thinking of telling the Secretary of State for Scotland—[Interruption.] He might telephone Chris Moncrieff—who


knows! My hon. Friend should steer clear of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian has said. We are concerned about the Scottish interest. I have a colleague from Scotland sitting next to me. Stick to the regional variations.

Mr. Howarth: The interventions are coming faster than my ability to reply to them.
While areas such as Norfolk and the centre of London are experiencing a huge explosion in property prices, in my constituency in Stockbridge village—I have discussed this with the Minister—houses in a shared ownership scheme, built, I think, by Barratt, three or four years ago, at a price of about £22,500, are now worth between £5,000 and £10,000. The Minister should intervene to stop the private landlord who is trying to buy up a number of those houses and turn them into some kind of housing management scheme that would be unsatisfactory to the residents. I hope that the Minister will intervene and enable the Stockbridge village trust to buy them, because it would be a far more responsible landlord than the private landlord.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would care to suggest to the Minister that if he does not believe what Opposition Members are saying about regional variations and the important implications of the amendment for interest charges, he should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He was in my constituency only yesterday, when we were able to show him a new development being built by the Bradford and Northern housing association. Just across the road were improved houses selling—because of the decline in population—at £6,000. The Minister can obtain that information from his colleague, so, if he has any doubt about what we are saying about the problem, he should check. The Government Chief Whip, who was a neighbour of mine and represented part of Burnley for some time, is also well aware of the problem of low house valuation in north-east Lancashire.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I should point out, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says that I have spent rather longer on my feet than I had intended, so I shall take no further interventions.
The truth is that we do not trust the Secretary of State—or any Secretary of State—with the power not only to manipulate interest charges but almost arbitrarily to call in the housing association grants with which these schemes were funded and to charge interest into the bargain. This seems to me a thoroughly bad measure which I do not think the House should support, and which I hope hon. Members will oppose in the Lobby.

Mrs. Roe: We have heard a lengthy and wide-ranging contribution from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I shall confine my remarks to the amendments.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised a point about the Housing Corporation paying interest for late HAG payments. There is no specific provision, but the manner in which housing association grant will be paid is a matter for determination by the corporation, after consulting the movement and with consent from the Secretary of State

and the Treasury. It would be perfectly possible for a similar rule for interest on late payment to be incorporated into those determinations.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the amendment does not imply that the Housing Corporation is always right. A grant might be overpaid through the fault of either the association or the corporation; or circumstances might change after grant has been paid, through the fault of neither party. That does not alter the principle that, if the repayment is delayed, interest should be recoverable.

Mr. Battle: Will the Under-Secretary answer the central question: when will the interest rate be fixed by the Secretary of State? Will it be fixed in advance, when the project is drawn up, or will it be retrospective? This is a crucial point that could affect the financing of the whole scheme.

Mrs. Roe: I shall come to that in a moment. It is on my list of points to which to reply.
I regret that I am going to puncture the fantasy conjured up by the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The fact is that the power provided by the amendments to require the payment of interest is a power for the Housing Corporation, not for the Secretary of State. I suspect that the Public Accounts Committee will be very surprised by the Opposition argument that when a grant has been paid which ought not to have been paid, or when the purpose for which it was paid is frustrated, and the association delays repaying it, it is somehow unfair or unreasonable to charge the association interest.
I must tell the hon. Member for Knowsley, North that the amendments do not have the significance that he has attributed to them. They deal with an extremely simple point of houskeeping. If grant has to be recovered, it is right that the association should be put under reasonable pressure to repay promptly, and the taxpayer has a right to expect that. A grant that should not have been paid is tantamount to a loan, and it is right that interest should. be recoverable.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 51.

Divlsion No. 351]
[1.18 am]


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carttiss, Michael
Franks, Cecil


Chope, Christopher
Freeman, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
French, Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Gale, Roger


Conway, Derek
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gill, Christopher


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Cope, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cran, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Gow, Ian


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Gregory, Conal


Day, Stephen
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Devlin, Tim
Grist, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Dover, Den
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Durant, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Christopher
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heddle, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Rathbone, Tim


Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jack, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jessel, Toby
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Dame Jiil (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Lewis


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, lan (Hertfordshire N)


Lang, Ian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Latham, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Trippier, David


Lord, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


Malins, Humfrey
Waller, Gary


Mans, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Maples, John
Watts, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wells, Bowen


Maude, Hon Francis
Whitney, Ray


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilshire, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Wolfson, Mark


Mills, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Yeo, Tim


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)



Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. David Maclean.


Neubert, Michael





NOES


Alton, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Illsley, Eric


Barron, Kevin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Battle, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McAvoy, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
McCartney, Ian


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale, AIan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clay, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Pike, Peter L.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Cummings, John
Ruddock, Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Turner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wall, Pat


Hinchliffe, David
Wallace, James


Home Robertson, John
Walley, Joan



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 35, line 39, at end insert——

'(7) A direction under subsection (2)(c) above requiring the payment of interest on the amount directed to be paid to the Corporation shall specify, in accordance with subsection (9) below,—
(a) the rate or rates of interest (whether fixed or variable) which is or are applicable;
(b) the date from which interest is payable, being not earlier than the date of the relevant event; and
(c) any provision for suspended or reduced interest which is applicable.
(8) In subsection (7)(c) above—

(a) the reference to a provision for suspended interest is a reference to a provision whereby, if the amount which is directed to be paid to the Corporation is paid before a date specified in the direction, no interest will be payable for any period after the date of the direction; and
(b) the reference to a provision for reduced interest is a reference to a provision whereby, if that amount is so paid, any interest payable will be payable at a rate or rates lower then the rate or rates which would otherwise be applicable.
(9) The matters specified in a direction as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (7) above shall be either—
(a) such as the Corporation, acting in accordance with such principles as it may from time to time determine, may specify as being appropriate, or
(b) such as the Corporation may determine to be appropriate in the particular case:—[Mrs. Roe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 52.

Division No. 352]
[1.32 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Batiste, Spencer
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Cran, James
Hawkins, Christopher


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hayes, Jerry


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hayward, Robert


Day, Stephen
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Devlin, Tim
Hind, Kenneth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Holt, Richard


Dover, Den
Hordern, Sir Peter


Durant, Tony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Favell, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Irvine, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jack, Michael


Forth, Eric
Jessel, Toby


Fox, Sir Marcus
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Franks, Cecil
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Freeman, Roger
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


French, Douglas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Gale, Roger
Knapman, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Gill, Christopher
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)






Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lightbown, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, lan (Hertfordshire N


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Sir Hal
Trippier, David


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Walden, George


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney^



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Redwood, John



Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas





NOES


Alton, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Meale, AIan


Bradley, Keith
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Nellist, Dave


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Patchett, Terry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Pike, Peter L.


Clay, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Dawn


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Redmond, Martin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ruddock, Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Cummings, John
Spearing, Nigel


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Turner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr John
Wall, Pat


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Walley, Joan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 49

TAX RELIEF GRANTS

Amendment proposed: No.256, in page 36, line 29, leave out

'341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'
and insert
'488 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'.—[Mrs. Roe]

Question put, That the amendment to made:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 41.

Division No. 353]
[1.42 am


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Batiste, Spencer
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knowles, Michael


Bowis, John
Lang, Ian


Bright, Graham
Latham, Michael


Burns, Simon
Lawrence, Ivan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lilley, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Malins, Humfrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mans, Keith


Cran, James
Maples, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Maude, Hon Francis


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Day, Stephen
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
Miller, Sir Hal


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Iain


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fallon, Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Favell, Tony
Morrison, Sir Charles


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Moss, Malcolm


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Michael


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Freeman, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gow, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ryder, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Shaw, David (Dover)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grist, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hanley, Jeremy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harris, David
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Stevens, Lewis


Hayward, Robert
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Summerson, Hugo


Holt, Richard
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Trippier, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hunter, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Irvine, Michael
Walden, George


Jack, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jessel, Toby
Warren, Kenneth


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Watts, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Wells, Bowen


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Whitney, Ray


Kirkhope, Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Knapman, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry






Wilshire, David



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Yeo, Tim





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barron, Kevin
Meale, AIan


Battle, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Nellist, Dave


Bradley, Keith
Patchett, Terry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Pike, Peter L.


Clay, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Dawn


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Redmond, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ruddock, Joan


Cummings, John
Spearing, Nigel


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Turner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Wall, Pat


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Walley, Joan


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



McAvoy, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 50

SURPLUS RENTAL INCOME

Mr. Battle: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 38, line 4 leave out subsections (6), (7) and (8).
The purpose of our amendment is to challenge the Government on this clause, which proposes to claw back surplus rental income. Although we suggested in Committee that the whole clause be deleted, we are now by the amendment trying to delete the final subsections so that, if the Secretary of State were to claw back the surplus rental income he would not be able to use it in any way. In other words, our amendment would neuter the purpose of the clawing back.
Today has been a strange day for me, as I have experienced a case of upstairs and downstairs. Today, in the Finance Bill Committee, on which I also serve, we discussed housing. The Government's attitude in that Committee contrasts strongly with the statements by the Minister of State in the Housing Bill Committee. This afternoon we discussed the business expansion scheme and, when we put to the Financial Secretary the phrases that the Minister of State introduced so often into our debates on the Housing Bill, such as the social charter and the social rented housing sector, a phrase that he used earlier in this debate, those statements were rebuffed by the Financial Secretary and his supporters, who want to push housing into the fair winds of the private sector without any social protection whatsoever.
A conflict is emerging at the heart of the Government's housing strategy. It has been put together in a piecemeal fashion. When we were discussing the Housing Bill in Committee, the civil servants were drawing up proposals to undermine the Bill by the business expansion scheme included in the Budget.
The Minister appears to be trapped in trying to find the difficult middle way between the public and private sectors. He is trapped at the heart of the Government's policy towards housing associations. In Committee the

Minister often used the phrase "meet me in the middle". Earlier, one of his colleagues was anticipating his early retirement from his post. He may well go down as the Minister of "meet me in the middle". One of his typical remarks in Committee was, "Come a bit further to meet us and I am sure that together we can do a great deal more." He has echoed those words as he has gone round to meet members of the housing association movement to suggest that he is holding to the difficult middle way between the public and private sectors. Although the Minister may support the social aspects of the policy, the Secretary of State is firmly undermining the market aspects of the policy, so they contradict one another and the Minister is overruled.
If the axis lies between the public and private sectors, where will the housing association movement fit under the Bill when, in the past, it has lain between the two sectors, with some support from each? Will it be pushed into the free market and be unprotected or, even worse as is suggested in the clause, will its revenue surplus be milked? Although it makes a profit in the free market, that profit will be clawed back by the Government in a form of interference that undermines the whole policy of the free market.

Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is making a good point about the money being milked. Has he noticed subsection (3), which states:
the surpluses in respect of a period shall be calculated in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine"?
The Secretary of State could fiddle the books so that it would look as though the association was making a surplus, when it was not really doing so, and he could then milk the money.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that we are discussing subsections (6), (7) and (8)—not subsection (3).

2 am

Mr. Battle: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would add only that what happens to the surplus and how it is determined is a moot question affecting the entire clause. I hope that my hon. Friend's points are taken on board by the Minister and that we get a reply so that we do not get the impression that the Secretary of State wants to fiddle the books in the background once the projects have gone ahead.
Earlier in the debate I was surprised to discover that Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), did not seem to have the foggiest idea about housing associations. The hon. Gentleman intervened to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) when he was describing the funding structure. It is worth reminding ourselves that at the moment housing associations are funded not only by the housing association grant, which is commonly known by the acronym HAG, but by a residual mortgage loan, which is provided either by the Housing Corporation or by a local authority.
I should like to emphasise the role played by local authorities in the past.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend explain that it is common practice in the Civil Service that, whenever a brief is prepared, any abbreviations in the speech are set out in


full? For the record, and to ensure that there is no misunderstanding when people read Hansard, will my hon. Friend explain precisely what HAG is, so that nobody could possibly conclude that he was continually referring to the Prime Minister? I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would intervene if you thought that my hon. Friend was doing that.

Mr. Battle: I am sure that you would intervene in those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I can assure my hon. Friend that HAG refers to housing association grant. I serve notice on my hon. Friend that I shall refer later in my contribution to GRF. which is another technical term with which we should all be acquainted. It means grant redemption fund, which is the clue to the whole purpose of the clause and the amendment.
Apart from the acronyms for describing the legislation relating to housing associations, I am struck by the fact that Conservative Members seem to fail to acknowledge the central role played by local authorities in supporting housing associations in the past. Yesterday, for example, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) failed to acknowledge that. Although the hon. Gentleman claims to be a supporter of housing associations, he is prepared to speak and vote against the very means of supporting them in the form of local authority funding. Unless Conservative Members are aware that local authorities contribute to the funding of housing associations, the means of funding them will not be properly understood.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities and housing associations have rarely disagreed about their respective functions and that local authorities, like housing associations, recognise that the councils used to provide the bulk of rented accommodation and that housing associations played a minor role? The housing associations have never disputed that. The extent to which the Government now want housing associations to take over the major responsibility for rented housing goes not only against the wishes of local authorities, but against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of housing associations, which understand that they have a more modest role.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because he reminds us—I am sure that all hon. Members could give examples of this—of how closely housing associations have worked with their local authorities to draw up various proposals. The very amount of housing association grant is determined once the final scheme costs and the amount of fair rent are known. Drawing up such schemes and getting to that equation demands a great amount of work, in co-operation with local authorities, to put the package together.

Mr. Skinner: I do not want to stop my hon. Friend's flow, but I do not agree with the point that he has made several times. I find it more than a little irksome when my hon. Friend keeps saying that, by their very nature, local authorities work closely with all housing associations. That is not quite the truth. I wish that my hon. Friend would take account of the fact that in some areas the old Coal Industry housing association did not always find favour with the local authorities. Local authorities were keen to ensure that their houses were brought up to a

decent standard and they allocated sums of money per house. The Coal Industry housing association ran into a lot of trouble in its later period and paid little attention —especially when MacGregor was at the helm—to providing amenities and ensuring that houses were brought up to a decent state of repair. I hope my lion. Friend will ensure that in all future references he does not make a general point about the "natural togetherness" of the two bodies. In doing so he frustrates my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valey (Mr. Redmond), who, I think, wants to point that out.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I do not think that I said that all housing associations had such a relationship. I agree that the relationships between local authorities and housing associations have been patchy.
In making the equation to get access to grant, the housing associations believed that the grant would cover the unexpected increase in cost or any unforeseen delay in implementing the contract. In the past, housing association grant has been available to meet the full costs of repair works to properties. When rental income—after deductions for management of housing associations have been made and day-to-day and cyclical maintenance have been carried out—does not meet the mortgage repayments, there is usually a discretionary revenue deficit grant—or, for hostels, a hostel deficit grant—which is made by the Secretary of State to tide them over and ensure that projects are viable. These projects will not be viable under clause 50. Although Conservative Members say that they are friendly towards, and supportive of, housing associations, their legislation proves the exact opposite.
Under clause 45, the Housing Corporation alone wili be given the power to make grant payments, but the removal of the power of local authorities to pay housing association grants on behalf of the Secretary of State will end local authority funding for housing associations. No mention is made of housing association payments for major repair schemes where the local authority holds the mortgage for the original scheme. At present, the Housing Corporation will fund major repairs for such schemes only if no, or only the minimum, housing association grant was paid on the original scheme.
Clause 50 replaces the existing grant redemption fund —I apologise if I refer in future to GRF—with a provision for a rent surplus fund, to be established where a housing association has previously received housing association grant under existing legislation or where it receives the new housing association grant once the legislation becomes law.

Mr. Cohen: I have looked at the figures for housing associations and am interested in the idea of the "rent surplus fund". Rents for housing associations have increased substantially, while housing benefits have decreased. For many low earners, annual rents can be 40 per cent. or more of their annual income. How can there be a rent surplus fund? Is it not purely at the expense of the low earners, who are paying such huge amounts? Surely it is wrong that the Secretary of State should take unto himself and the Treasury powers to take that money from the housing associations and out of the pockets of those poor individuals. Is that not a scandal?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has done his homework well, because when, in 1987, the Department of the


Environment published proposals for financing housing associations, the Government envisaged that there would not be a rent surplus fund, since a surplus would not arise on new schemes combining public and private finance. That was acknowledged in that consultation document last year. Why will the Government not take notice of that advice and incorporate it in the Bill? Instead, we have a provision that reflects the rubber stamp of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Cryer: Pensioner couples in my constituency have had their housing benefit reduced by over £5 a week, yet they are facing increases in rent and service charges—the latter being a vague area which many tenants do not properly comprehend—by the Anchor housing association. Any rent surpluses should be used to keep rents to the absolute minimum for tenants who are struggling to make ends meet under this vicious Government, who are robbing them of housing benefit.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend highlights where this surplus money will come from. When, in Committee, we asked the Minister whether increases in rent would be matched by housing benefit, he said that they would. But the graph of housing benefit in the public expenditure White Paper shows that housing benefit is being reduced each year. There is no sign in that White Paper that housing benefit resources will be increased to pay for the rent increases that will occur under this measure.
The Minister told me in Committee that he would give me a prize if, on reading the Official Report of the proceedings, I found six references to the Bill providing housing benefit. Such references do not exist, because the Minister has not obtained from the Treasury a commitment to fund the housing benefit. The result will be not only increased rents, but people having to find the money from elsewhere to pay those increases. And when the housing associations have rent surpluses, that money will be creamed off under this provision.

Mr. Winnick: Housing associations would like to be in a position to charge fair rents. Under the Bill they will have no alternative but to grant tenancies on an assured basis, and that will represent a market rent. This will be a devastating blow to those who in the past were helped by housing associations but who will now be offered accommodation at a rent which most people in housing need will consider exorbitant, and who, if they had that sort of money, might wish to buy their own homes.

Mr. Battle: That is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) speaks of those who will have to pay rent increases, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) points out that those increased rents will be at market levels because housing associations will lose their protection under the Bill. As a result, the Secretary of State will be able to direct housing associations to set rent surplus funds, from which he will be able to claw back surpluses accruing from higher rents.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is making a good point. As you probably noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is keeping very close to the terms of the amendment. He is

telling us all about clause 50, and HAG, GRF and all the rest of the gang. What worries me is what will happen to the money that is clawed back. I want to know whether in Committee they discussed what the Secretary of State will do with the surplus money. We know that there is a balance of payments deficit approaching £7 billion. It will increase as North sea oil is gradually frittered away. Has my hon. Friend discussed where the money is going?
There is a suspicion in my mind, based upon the information which my hon. Friend has given us, about where the money is going. I suspect that it will be used to balance the nation's books. So people who are up to the neck in debt and who cannot make ends meet will be helping to meet the growing deficit in the balance of payments so as to keep the Tory Ministers in jobs. I want to know——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough for an intervention.

Mr. Battle: That is an important point. In Committee we did not discuss what the Secretary of State would do with the surplus, because we expected the Minister to withdraw the clause, not least because the National Federation of Housing Associations had petitioned him to do so because it wanted the grant redemption fund to be abolished. Unfortunately and surprisingly, the Minister was not prepared to withdraw the clause in Committee.
My hon. Friend has asked a good question. I suspect that the money taken from people who had their housing benefit cut and who have had to find extra money to pay their weekly rent will go into the surplus fund and will be clawed back. No doubt that money will be used for future business expansion schemes that are put forward to fund private landlords who want to develop housing which will give no protection to tenants.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Before he goes on to the iniquitous business expansion scheme, can my hon. Friend clarify whether, when this was discussed in Committee, the Minister was aware of cases like that of a widow in my constituency who in March was paying in rent and rates, after a rebate, £3·96 a month but in April was paying £144·22 a month? Is that what is building up the surplus? Is that what the Secretary of State means when he says that rents are far too low and will have to be doubled? Is it to go towards the new surplus fund which will not be ploughed back into housing but will help bail out the Government?

Mr. Battle: As always, my hon. Friend gives the details graphically. He has spelt out the impact of the Government's cuts in housing benefit, despite the fact that the Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and announces that everybody is benefiting from prosperous Britain. My hon. Friend has a reputation for regularly pointing out the lie of that claim.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend bear with me? Does he agree that, when we talk about a rent surplus, we should bear in mind cases such as that of a constituent of mine, a lady in her 70s, who burst into tears when explaining to me at my surgery a substantial rent increase which she could not afford? Does my hon. Friend agree that that was embarrassing and distressing for me as a Member of Parliament? I never thought I would see the day when a person in her 70s would burst into tears in my surgery because of the hardship that she was suffering over rent


increases, even though I explained to her that, since she had lost much more than £2·50 per week, there would be at least partial compensation. [Interruption.] It is easy for Tory Members to make derogatory noises. I wonder what they would say to their own constituents who are in the same position as my constituent. It is disgusting when such people are penalised day in, day out.

Mr. Battle: The clause will result in many people going to their housing associations and bursting into tears after being asked to pay increased rent and then being told that they will be evicted if they are unable to make up the difference between the shortfall in their housing benefit and the new market rent needed to generate the surplus that will then be creamed off.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since 1979, successive Conservative Governments have attacked public expenditure and sought to reduce it, and by so doing they lowered income tax? One wonders whether it is the Government's intention to claw back any surplus in order to make further tax concessions to their rich friends in the City. Does my hon. Friend agree that such is a possibility? If it is not, perhaps the Minister will say so.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has cited a classic case of taking money from people who need it in the publicly supported sector whom we have always supported in the past. Earlier in this debate, and in the debate on the Finance Bill, there were expressions of surprise that there was no longer a consensus on housing policy. When the House is presented with clauses such as this, which suggests that surplus rents should be used to cut income tax to 20p and put more money in the pockets of those who are already better off, it is hardly surprising that there is no consensus.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend concede that subsection (6) makes it clear that interest too can be demanded by the Secretary of State, so that people who have lost housing benefit, who have been penalised because they have a pension, and whose rents have rocketed to record levels, may not only see surpluses clawed back by the Secretary of State for another, no doubt nefarious purpose, but may also be confronted with interest at penal rates?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend refers to a point made earlier, when the subject of interest was debated in relation to another clause. Section 53 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 provides that any associations receiving a grant and whose projects yield a surplus arising from increased rental income are required to establish a grant redemption fund. The purpose of that provision has always been to allow the Secretary of State power to recoup the original grant over a period of time. This clause would reinstate that provision with vigour.
Both my hon. Friend and the National Federation of Housing Associations have pointed out that there is no need for redemption fund arrangements, which in the past have yielded only relatively modest sums for the Government and the Housing Corporation. Nevertheless, those "modest" sums are gleaned from the pockets of precisely the people to whom my hon. Friends have referred.

Mr. Clay: The more that my hon. Friend goes into this horror story, the more it seems to me that a better choice

of words for the graph and the Bill would be the Capitalist Robbery Action Programme. Will my hon. Friend care reflect on the acronym for that, because it seems rather appropriate?

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for putting it into plain language. Anyone who is struggling to understand the Government's policy must wonder why on earth this proposal to milk back the increase and route it into the central kitty for the purpose of making further tax cuts can be explained as freeing the market and generating profits that can be used however the market wants.
We cannot at this stage suggest that the clause be deleted, although that is what we would like to do. Instead, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot use any means, whether by paying back and cutting taxes or through the business expansion scheme, to take away that revenue surplus. In that sense we would urge the Minister to step back from the proposal and support the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend referring to HAG or GRF or CRAP? My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) referred to the Capitalist Robbery Action Programme. That sums it up in a nutshell, and from now on, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who knows all about these matters, should refer to the combination of GRF and HAG under the title of CRAP. I am trying my best to get it in the Official Report.

Mr. Battle: The title chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) to describe the scheme finds an apt response in the Government's consultation document. There we read about this great deregulation proposal and how it will affect housing associations. It says:
If rents are to keep pace with those applying to mixed funding schemes"—
we shall come to those later—
surpluses are therefore likely to build up and it seems necessary to contemplate the retention of the present GRF machinery in some form as an offset to the relatively generous initial HAG payment. As an incentive to efficiency and to the maintenance of sensible rent policies, however, it would seem desirable to enable associations to retain a proportion of those surpluses.
The Government have introduced another phrase in that Document—"sensible rent policies". I should be interested to know what they are because we have already had references to market rents and affordable rents. Is that another category in the ragbag in the Government's rent policy?

Mr. Simon Hughes: In Committee, the Minister said that the words "sensible" and "affordable" were interchangeable. He never defined them in terms of pounds and pence, but since they are interchangeable the hon. Gentleman may feel free to use either.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful for that comment on he Minister's language. He seems to use many interchangeable phrases but there is no flesh and blood on, or definition of, any of them. It reminds me of the social charter that we were promised for the landlords, which has done something of a disappearing act. It simply is not in the Bill. There is no substance or reality in the Minister's


words and that sums up the difficulty. He puts smooth words on the policy but the Bill hits tenants hard and pushes housing firmly into the private rented sector.

Mr. Cohen: Various titles which make it easier to follow the debate have been suggested. We have heard about HAG and GRF and CRAP, but may I suggest another? We have discussed how money will go to the Treasury and be wasted on all sorts of things for the Government's friends. Could we not call that Squandering Housing Income from Tenants, which could also be known by its initials?

Mr. Battle: I am convinced that my hon. Friend's long description of that policy fits tidily with the other description. It reveals what is at the heart of the policy. As for whether the terms are interchangeable, I refer that to those who may have better knowledge.
Let us get away from HAG and the rest, and turn to the new financial arrangements set out in the consultation paper "Finance for Housing Associations: The Government's Proposals". The Government come up with proposals for how to use the surplus which are very interesting. They suggest that retained surpluses will be needed to fund the proposed progressive phasing out of grant for major repairs and the service deficits which many associations are incurring. The document also acknowledges that surpluses will need to be accumulated to strengthen associations' balance sheets to attract loans from the private sector. The problem is that those proposals are undermined by the proposals in clause 50.

Mr. Redmond: If associations have surpluses, the Government intend to claw them back. If they do not, how can they attract the private sector money? It is a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point so clearly and succinctly. Housing associations that take part in schemes funded partly by private borrowing and partly by public grant will be expected to bear the major risks, as the grant is likely to be determined when a scheme is first drawn up and will not be increased to take account of any unforeseen or increased costs. That will mean that schemes are not viable.
To expect housing associations to bear the full burden of the risk is also to take away the prospect of their building up any form of surplus that would enable them to take such risks in the first place. It is the same as the equation of capital receipts, in which the Government claw back money to prevent development work from proceeding. The Minister needs to explain how housing associations will be able to build up the reserves to enable them to develop and manage the houses that they already have and hope to extend. They will not be free to do that; they will be chained down because the surplus on the rental income is being clawed back.
A letter from the Hanover housing association is very pertinent to the clause. It says that the National Federation of Housing Associations' stance
is to compromise by discussng the extent of a set-off for major repairs; and long term effects of the ADP.
That is a new acronym for me to introduce to hon. Members.

Abolish GRF in principle, but in practice mitigate it.
The letter continues:
We are also told GRF is not a matter for the Housing Bill, but for discussion later.
Throughout the Committee stage we were promised that the discussion would come later. The Minister said that if we would come a little way to meet him he would come a little way to meet us, and that if we withdrew our amendments he would table amendments on Report that would take account of our objections. The reckoning time for the Minister is now. Where are the Government's amendments to meet our objections in Committee? By and large they are not there.
We asked for more than 101 concessions on the Bill and those requests can be found in the Hansard report of the Committee's proceedings. However, the Government's amendments that we have considered over the past few days and those we are considering now show that the concessions that the Minister promised have not been delivered. It is not surprising that many people are now cynical about the Government's approach to their Committee work and the way in which Bills are brought before the House and are developed.
The letter continues:
We were also told GRF is not a matter for the Housing Bill, but for discussion later. Why? GRF was created by statute, and can be abolished by statute. There have been so many changes to the current Housing Bill—why not the addition of a clause abolishing GRF?
The writers represent two very different housing associations—one national, specialist, principally newbuild, paying GRF; the other community-based in London, traditionally rehab, in receipt of RDG. Yet we and many others that we have spoken to agree totally that the abolition of GRF is the single most important matter"—
I want to repeat that—
the single most important matter affecting housing associations today, and must be accomplished quickly if we are to continue to keep our properties in good repair and produce new homes to the standard and quality that our customers, and the government expect in an era of mixed funding.
I hope that that goes some way to answering the point raised earlier.

Mr. George Howarth: The letter from which my hon. Friend has quoted makes his point very well.
Will he speculate on the problem facing housing co-operatives which are affected by the same funding regime? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has quoted a housing association with a wide asset base commenting on the effect that the funding regime will have, while housing co-operatives do not have that wide asset base because they have few assets.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me to make that point and I hope to comment on that in detail later.
The Minister must tell us whether he will continue the 100 per cent. funding for housing co-operatives. Without that funding, they will fail, go under and have no chance. At this late stage, we hope that the Minister will come clean and tell us whether he intends to continue that funding. If he will give us that commitment now, it will save us time later.

Mr. Redmond: I am afraid that I must disillusion my hon. Friend if he expects the Government to make any concessions that would be helpful to tenants in the private sector. The whole thrust since 1979—I keep repeating this —has been against tenants in the public and private


sectors. Successive legislation has borne down on tenants. We must understand that each successive Bill gets worse as it progresses. It becomes more of a mess and the anomalies are sorted out in the courts. The Secretary of State has to come back to the House to rectify matters. I am sorry to have to disillusion my hon. Friend, but we can expect no concessions from the Government.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has introduced a hard note of disillusionment. I try to retain hope that the Government might change their mind, but perhaps that is a false dream.
I believe that the Government might change their mind because I find it totally inexplicable for Conservative Members to claim to support housing associations in the press and in public—as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East claimed—but to vote in Committee and on Report for the clauses that damage housing associations.

Mr. Kirkhope: I have had to listen to an awful lot of nonsense tonight. I am quite prepared to sit here and listen —as I must—to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues going on and on, but most of what they have said is pretty irrelevant. However, I would be grateful if they would keep me out of this. I am happy to sit here, but please would hon. Members not bring all this irrelevance and nonsense into the discussion.

Mr. Battle: With the greatest respect, it is a little late in the day for the hon. Gentleman to say that we should leave him out of this, because he has publicly claimed to participate in the debate. I know that housing associations in his constituency have petitioned him on this matter and expect him to represent them.

Mr. Winnick: I do not know where the Secretary of State is now—probably asleep—but is not his one virtue that he states facts and opinions frankly and does not beat about the hush, like the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope)? In his Second Reading speech at the end of October, the Secretary of State emphasised rented accommodation in the private sector and paid little attention to housing associations. He probably takes the same view on housing associations as on local authorities. He basically wants the bulk of rented accommodation to come from the privately rented sector, with a clear profit for landlords and property companies.

Mr. Battle: In public, Conservative Members are caught in the same trap as the Minister. The Secretary of State wants privatisation, and tenants to be pushed into the fair winds of the free market, and as soon as Conservative Members are leaned on by their constituents and constituency associations, they make statements, for example in the Yorkshire Evening Post, about how supportive they are of housing associations, while they vote for clauses that will damage associations.

Mr. Kirkhope: I wish to be left out of what I consider to be a wholly irrelevant filibustering attempt. I should like to be involved in a sensible discussion in sensible circumstances on the future of housing associations and the benefits that they can obtain from Government proposals. I have not been petitioned, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, by housing associations in my constituency. That is nonsense and I should like him to withdraw that allegation. I have been involved in constructive discussions, listening to anxieties and passing

them on to the Minister. I am happy that many of these proposals reflect those anxieties and will be of great help to my associations.

Mr. Battle: I do not intend to withdraw what the hon. Gentleman calls an allegation, because I know it to be true. I need only repeat the sentence in the letter which states:
the abolition of GRF is the single most important matter affecting housing associations today.
I know that the Leeds federated housing association mentioned that in its submission to the hon. Gentleman. He simply says that he has passed anxieties on. Perhaps that is what many Tory Back Benchers say whenever they meet a problem. Perhaps they say, "I'll look after you and pass on the matter to the Minister." They believe that that is action, but they do not know what goes on in our long hours of debate when we go through the Lobbies and approve clauses that damage the people whom they say they will support. That should be public information.

Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) is analagous to that of the first world war parson who used to say to the troops departing for the trenches, "May God go with you and I will go as far as the railway station,"? Is that not what he is saying to the Leeds housing associations?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend, with the eloquence that has marked him out tonight, picks up another characteristic which perfectly describes the actions of Conservative Members.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's speech because I know that he is just getting going, but I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) referred to filibustering. You know better than me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that filibustering is in breach of the Standing Orders; it is not permitted and it would be a criticism of your conduct in the Chair. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Standing Orders have been complied with.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman can leave this matter in my capable hands. I am in charge of this debate for the next few hours and I shall see that it is conducted properly.

Mr. Battle: I was tempted to ask the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East to withdraw his allegation of filibustering, because I have tried hard to stick to the detail of the clause. We are discussing the Bill precisely because the Government have tabled amendments at a late stage and that has not enabled us to discuss them properly in Committee.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has failed to grasp that subsections (6), (7) and (8) give a new power to the Secretary of State to Build Additional Liable Levied Surpluses—or BALLS to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Battle: I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East will carry that message back to the housing associations when they call him to account should he vote with the Government against our amendment.
Mixed funding is an important issue to consider. Yesterday the Minister—I hope that he has now woken up —referred to mixed funding as an experimental scheme despite the implications that it is going ahead with a speed that is incompatible with experiment. The housing association movement is being shifted into mixed funding whether it likes it or not.
The Minister admitted that a mistake had been made in the first year when he said:
the mixed spending scheme has only just started with a tiny sum of money in the first year and the grant levels too low. Therefore, we have put more money into it and we are developing it as we go along. The scheme is now beginning to work.
We are getting used to housing policy being developed as we go along.
Later in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the "experimental mixed funding scheme" and
the second year of the experimental programme". —[Official Report, 13 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 85.]
How long will the experiment last and how will its effects be assessed? How is the experiment reconciled with the way in which his Department and the Housing Corporation are now pushing mixed funding as though it were going out of fashion? There is no experiment. What we have is a forced changeover to mixed funding without any time or mechanism for properly assessing the consequences for housing associations and for tenants, for whom we are particularly concerned. There are no proposals for assessment.
How things have changed since the Minister stood up in Committee and said:
we must go carefully with the introduction of mixed funding scheme". —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 9 February 1988; c. 726.]
The Minister is pushing the Housing Corporation into mixed funding like a bat out of hell. It is not a question of treading carefully, and tenants of the housing associations will pay the price.

Mr. Pike: As my hon. Friend goes on in the House he will realise that, unfortunately, the Minister to whom he is referring is not responsible. We must look to the Secretary of State, who has gained a hard reputation on every Bill with which he has been concerned. One day I hope that someone will take him to the Ridley evangelical hall, which is just off Queenstown road in Battersea, where he might be converted. He could then introduce some positive legislation that does good for housing and local government instead of mounting constant, vicious attacks on both.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the Secretary of State regularly advises the Minister to get on with it and push them into the private sector, regardless of the consequences—and to drop his references to the social charter, and so on.

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has a copyright on this, too. While we are discussing the Secretary of State, and as another contribution to our collection of acronyms, it strikes me that the Bill could be described as a private rented income crookery kit. The acronym for that would be a good description of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Battle: The ingenuity of some of my hon. Friend's attempts to characterise the Bill defies description. The Minister should explain the Government's intentions toward the speed of transfer to mixed funding. What is his commitment to small-scale housing associations, particularly to those that meet the needs of the ethnic minorities in inner cities? The co-operatives are all continuing on a 100 per cent. pack. Has that commitment been dropped? Will they all be pushed into mixed funding with indecent haste?
The Minister said that mixed funding was experimental—but is it? The Housing Corporation is pushing housing associations to change over to mixed funding now, and yesterday the Minister referred to housing associations overbidding. They are overbidding because the Housing Corporation is exhorting them to change over. If the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East thinks that that is irrelevant filibustering, he must face up to the small housing associations in his constituency. They also exist in the constituencies of other Conservative Members. He must tell them how they will survive when they lose their 100 per cent. because of having been pushed into mixed funding.

Mr. Cohen: I am amazed at this term "overbidding". I have details of disrepair among houses in London. The number of houses needing more than £5,300-worth of repairs was about 255,000 when the Government came to office in 1979, and 360,000 in 1984—up by 42 per cent. It has probably risen considerably since then. Most of those houses are in the private sector, the very sector in which the housing associations will need to be active to get the houses back into use, so that they will not lie empty. How can the housing associations be overbidding when the extent of the problem is so great?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has done his research and is well aware, as are Conservative Members, of the submission that those of us who served on the Standing Committee received from the National Federation of Housing Associations. The document was called, "Rents, Rights and Risks". I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East will have read it in detail, given that he says that he passed the federation's concerns on to the Minister. One of the things that the federation highlighted was the need to manage the speed of change. It wanted the change to be gradual, because of the backlog of repairs, to ensure that their organisations kept going.
The effect on small associations and on rents needs to be carefully assessed, as does the ability of housing associations to attract the private finance that the Minister and Secretary of State seem to think will beneficently flow to them once they are pushed into the freedom of the open market. If they are to attract private finance on reasonable terms and bear the risks that the Government ask them to bear, their request to shift gradually to mixed funding, rather than to be forced over to it, should be taken seriously.
In Committee, the Minister gave the cosy impression that he was willing to accept the argument of the National Federation of Housing Associations that was presented in the document entitled "Rents, Rights and Risks". He said:
The introduction of the mixed funding will not be total. A considerable number of 100 per cent. funded schemes will continue, we shall go carefully and watch how the mixed funding schemes work.
He also said:


We are in early and experimental days. That is why we must go carefully with the introduction of the mixed funding scheme,"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 9 February, 1988; c. 725–6.]
In March he commented on the increased percentage of the housing association grant. I apologise for again dragging HAG into the argument. The Minister spoke about the increase in housing association grant for mixed funding as an experimental scheme. He said:
I am grateful for the slightly grudging welcome that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) gave to the increased HAG rate in the experimental scheme …The experimental scheme—this is still its second year—will have now a higher percentage rate than we first set out." [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 3 March 1988; c. 1350.]
Despite the reasssuring warm words from the Minister, all the signs are that the Department of the Environment, pushed by the Secretary of State and the Housing Corporation, is pressing ahead at great speed with mixed funding schemes without waiting for their effects to be properly assessed. Obviously, there are dangers in doing that, especially in working with private finance—which is precisely the purpose and point of the Bill.
The experience, especially of smaller associations, of the changeover to mixed funding shows that it is not experimental. The small associations will be firmly priced out. The change to mixed funding is going ahead and its speed shows that the interests of smaller associations, those dealing with special needs and housing co-operatives, are no longer the Government's priority. Yet the Government claim that housing associations were set up to look after such interests. That policy is being undermined by the clause.
Will the Minister guarantee that 100 per cent. publicly funded schemes will continue for small associations? That guarantee is vital to the existence of emerging associations, especially those associations dealing with ethnic minorities and to co-operative housing associations. If the Minister cannot give that guarantee, there is little prospect of those associations getting started. If they do, they have little prospect of ever being able to increase their housing stock, the housing stock they have will decline and they will not be able properly to repair it.
Do the Government intend that associations that cannot use mixed funding, for whatever reason, should develop or will they fall behind as the lame ducklings of the clause?

Mr. Redmond: One can only conjecture about the possible strategy of the Government. Could it be that the Government intend deliberately to run down properties by withholding finance? That would bring them to a state of disrepair and the private sector, the sharks from the City, would be allowed to come in and take over valuable assets at a cheap rate.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes a helpful point. Once such a takeover happens, the properties may well benefit from the business expansion scheme, the £500,000 tax gift that has been given to private landlords. There would then be no controls on rents or measures for the protection of tenants in property that has fallen into disrepair. They would be completely removed from the social charter. As we said earlier, business expansion scheme landlords will not be covered by the social landlord charter and will be free to do what they want. As my hon. Friend reminds me, the Government's policy has been to

undermine the housing associations and, if the Minister continues to withdraw public support, there will come a point when they are no longer sustainable.
3 am
We should be aware that the housing association grant is being cut from 80 per cent. to 50 per cent. All those measures mean that housing associations can no longer fund inner-city projects. A practical example of that is in Leeds, where many of the rows and rows of back-to-back houses had, not surprisingly, many cellars. When they were knocked down, it was difficult to build on that land without filling in the cellars. However, once a cellar is filled in on a building contract, that counts as an abnormal cost, which then pushes up the cost.
If an association does not receive public support for that, or if it built on land on which there had been a gasometer, the land becomes sterilised and extra funding is needed to make it viable to build houses in inner-city areas. That cannot be done without public subsidy.

Mr. Skinner: It has crossed my mind that it is not just inner cities. The Government have made great play about inner cities and they attempt all sorts of things, but we know that that is a load of whatever acronym was used way back. I am worried about what will happen to agricultural land that is set aside and not used for agricultural purposes for several years. There is compensation of about £200 per hectare. When the farmer has that, along comes a developer, who manages to gain planning permission on land that used to be agricultural, and they make money that way as well.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has discussed that at any level. It is not just a matter of inner cities. A great deal of money can be made. Housing associations obviously would not benefit, but it is conceivable that some of the surplus funds that are creamed off could be used for those purposes.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps the Bill should be called not the Housing Bill, but the Housing Market and Sales Bill, because that is really what it is. An interesting point in the discussions on the Bill has been the background debate emerging between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the previous Minister of Defence, who seems to take the line that we should not build in the green belt because he wants developments in the inner cities, supported by public subsidies. That is a contradiction of the heart of Government policy because the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to believe that the free market means that one can build anywhere.

Mr. Skinner: Even in his back garden.

Mr. Battle: Yes, even in his back garden.
There should be public assistance in developing some areas and planning to decide which areas should be developed. There should be a planned programme for housing in Britain. We must protect not only the green belt in the rural areas, but the green belt in the inner cities as well. Unless we have a planned programme for housing development in green belts, which the Government appear to be abandoning, it seems that the Government's policies for housing, land and planning will be left in fragments.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend mentioned long-term planning, but, of course, that is alien to the Government, whose whole thrust is that market forces will determine the day. If that is so, there cannot be long-term planning. The only long-term planning that I have seen is the demise of the rented housing sector, public and private. If we want sensible planning, do not expect the Government to do it.

Mr. Battle: The planning point has been admirably made by my hon. Friend. If we leave everything to the market and the short-term, cash-in economy that the Government are developing, inevitably many people, organisations and developments will pay a heavy price. The question raised by our amendments is, if the Bill is carried, who will pay the price? The Bill will hammer small-scale housing associations and housing co-operatives out of existence. It will defeat any attempt to provide for ethnic minorities.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the debate about green belt and housing development does not take into account the type of housing so desperately needed by those who cannot afford to buy? There is a need for low-cost housing, housing association dwellings and so on. Is it not unfortunate that the whole emphasis of the Bill is to provide large profits for the private landlord, while making no provison for renting? Will not our constituents who cannot afford a mortgage find themselves in an even worse position when the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is right. Housing association policy will be shredded by the clause because the special needs category and inner-city developments will not be underwritten. It is imperative that the Government support the amendment. If they really want to convince the housing associations that they are their friends—they make great play of that in public—they must show it in political action by supporting the amendment. We need a clear commitment from the Minister to 100 per cent. housing association grants for the smaller associations and co-operatives. They do not want to be pushed into mixed funding, but if they are they will be priced out of existence.
I urge the Minister to resist the total takeover of mixed funding——

Mr. Cryer: I have followed my hon. Friend's valid argument about market forces. The parts of the clause that we wish to delete relate to the process of moving housing associations towards the market, because the Government are concerned only with the market.
Will my hon. Friend compare the Government's attitude in moving the housing sector into the market with such zest and determination, with their attitude towards the farming fraternity—where market forces do not apply and, for example, cereal farmers receive a guaranteed income whatever their output? Many of them receive a guaranteed income for storing the food for which they had already received a guaranteed income. The Government make little effort to change that because the farmers pay money into the Tory coffers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment deals with housing associations.

Mr. Battle: The issue of pushing housing associations into the free market is vital because the Minister is

abandoning his commitment to social responsibility and is shifting the housing sector into what the Government see as the fair winds of the market sector.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has dealt thoroughly with what will happen to small housing associations. Does he agree that one of the problems for smaller associations on outer estates—never mind the inner cities—will be coping with private finance, often in the context of declining property values, especially in the north of England? Will he comment on the likelihood of a building society or any other financial institution wanting to lend to build something that is likely to decline in value? In many cases the building societies and financial institutions will not wish to do so, which will effectively terminate any housing association developments on outer estates where property values are declining.

Mr. Battle: If a housing association scheme is to be viable and produce reasonable rents, it must take account of the costs of borrowing the money for refurbishments and maintenance. It should also take into account the cost of a sinking fund to cover future major repairs.
Some such schemes were explored by Leeds council in association with local housing associations and the private funding agencies, but the problem was that the outturn costs were found to be excessive. No schemes could be set up because index-linked funds are not available and mortgage fund finance is restricted to smaller scale loans. It may well be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North reminded me, that the stock exchange is the only source of finance these days at a very high price. However, to put together a stock exchange deal to finance a small-scale housing association is out of the question, given how difficult and complicated that process would be.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Is it not a fact that housing associations, especially small housing associations, need 100 per cent. Government grants and loans, and that they need to be protected from the market economy? Surely, in any society, it is the Government's duty to look after the unfortunate and ensure that they have reasonable housing so that they can lead the good life in society.

Mr. Battle: There appear to be many contradictions in the Government's policy. If the Bill is enacted, housing associations will be pushed into the same kind of funny money deals that local authorities were prevented from entering into under local government legislation earlier this year. Local councils cannot organise their finances in the open market and go to the stock exchange because a clause was entered in the local government legislation, as a result of what happened in Sheffield, to prevent them raising finance in that way in an attempt to make schemes viable.
There is a great deal of double-think going on in the Government's policies. They suggest going to the free market, but when local authorities and housing associations want to step into the great market of the finance sector, the Government prevent them from doing so. The Minister will have to attempt to square this Bill with legislation elsewhere.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend made an interesting point before he was diverted on to other legitimate points. He gave the example of a cellar having to be filled in at an exceptional cost. That reminded me of a recent case brought to my attention by the local branch of Friends of


the Earth concerning a factory in Redbridge that was leaking radiation into the ground. That factory was knocked down and I have now received a letter saying that houses will be built on that dangerous site. Great costs will be incurred to prepare that site for houses, and a housing association may be involved. Under the terms of the amendment, the Government could then add insult to injury and charge those poor tenants, who probably do not know that they are going on to land soaked with radiation, increasingly large sums for attempting to remedy the problem.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is right. Ideally, we would not choose to build on many of the sites that we must build on to develop housing. There are also problems with mining subsidence. In one case, Barratt built some homes on a site next to a tip and methane gas was later discovered in those houses. Many problems are emerging in connection with the building of houses, contrary to the Secretary of State's notion that one can just go out and build a house on a green field. That policy appears to underline the idea that the magic of the market will provide. The notion of total commitment to the magic of the market appears to go beyond even what Adam Smith suggested, that all the excessive individuals should have some point of social reference.
I am reminded of a preface written by the former hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, Sir Keith Joseph, to a pamphlet entitled "The Social Market Economy". The pamphlet may have given some people the misleading impression that social values would be brought into the market place and into policy. The Government seem to believe that they have cracked the economy in some mechanistic, materialistic manner, but having, according to them, got the base of the economy right, they are now moving on to tackle areas of social policy such as local government; social security; health; education; and now housing. However, they are not moving social values into the market place—they are moving the market to the heart of those areas of social policy.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend should not assume that throughout his life Sir Keith Joseph believed in the monetarist philosophy and the system of the market place, or in the "fair winds" as he called it. When Sir Keith Joseph lost his ministerial car on ceasing to be the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the first place he went was across the road to Westminster tube station to get his photograph taken because he wanted a free bus pass. So he was in favour of market forces while he had a ministerial car, but the moment he lost it, he was into spending public money in a big way.

Mr. Battle: I defer to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely spot on in always exposing the contradictions that are at the heart of the Government's policies and practices; has a record second to none for doing that. He has reminded me that even in the clause that we are discussing, we are told that the Bill's purpose is to free the housing associations into the market, but in the clause, we read that although they are free in the market, woe betide them if they make a surplus on their rent account because they are not free to use it and it will he clawed back by the Government.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—I urge the Minister not to use housing associations as a sideline for generating revenue for other unspecified projects, the likes of which we could begin to define and at which my hon. Friends have hinted. We should like to know whether housing associations will be contributing to the Treasury to help to get taxes down to 20 per cent. or to fund the business expansion scheme.
I quietly advise the Minister that the housing associations have asked him to abolish the grant redemption fund. They have made their view plain and have lobbied Conservative Members about it. We have been assured tonight that those concerns have been passed on to the Minister, so he must have had innumerable requests from housing associations and his own Back Benchers. Why will he not abolish that tonight? If he cannot do that, why does he not accept our amendments to neuter the effect of the grant redemption fund? Otherwise, the Minister and his Government are clearly pushing housing associations hard and fast into the private sector.
The Minister for Housing and Planning has clearly signalled that he has now abandoned that difficult middle way between the public and private sectors that he has struggled to hold on to throughout this Parliament, but on which he has been losing ground fast because the Secretary of State is leaning on him, and telling him to push harder for this privatisation policy for housing.
This clause will cast housing associations out into the market, abandoning the social responsibility to which the Minister referred regularly in Committee. The Minister can no longer claim the role of the socially responsible Minister, hanging on to the social aspects of the policy, because the market is being wheeled into housing policy. He cannot hold the ends together and, as a result, his time will come—I hope that it is now—because he promised throughout to deliver a socially responsible Housing Bill. He has referred to the needs for social charters and for the social rented sector, but this Bill is a hard and fast Privatisation of Housing Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested earlier, it is a Bill that simply sets up the conditions such that it would be better called the Housing (Marketing and Sales) Bill.
The Bill will split housing associations by setting the big fry against the smaller fry and will undermine exactly the purposes for which housing associations were set up in the first place. In conclusion, I am sure that after tonight's debate, the housing associations will be absolutely clear about what is happening and what is being done to them and by whom, and about who their real friends are in this Chamber.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment. This is the last debate that we can have on housing associations on part II. I hope that it is clear by now to the Government and the public that the House considers that housing associations are important and is willing to dedicate a significant time to debate their financial future.
We have had controversial and important debates on the private rented sector. We started today's debate with the amendments and new clause which I tabled, which are linked to the subject on which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) spoke and dealing with affordable rents and where the money in the cycle of provision, from taxpayer to user, ends up.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West did a sterling job in moving the amendment. He may not have noticed that he marginally lost the battle of the roses, in that his colleague from the other side of the Pennines—the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)—managed to outstay him slightly. Perhaps, by a slight abbreviation of the comments on this measure, the battle between Leeds and Knowsley could end up evens.
This amendment, and the first group, expose the Government's contradictory policy. The Government have argued that they want private money in housing associations. Amendment No. 85 deletes those parts of clause 50 that would allow the Government to take back money in housing association reserves. As the Government have said, the biggest housing associations —from the largest, the North housing association, with 21,000 members, to the 10th largest, the Northern Counties housing association, with 8,500 members—would be expected to be entirely self-financing, to carry their own risks, not to come to the Government for money and to bail themselves out of difficulties.
The smaller housing associations—some of which are very small—may need private money coming in and need to look to the Government for help if costs overrun. The housing association movement argues strongly that retained surpluses—which the Government want the power to take back—will be needed to fund the proposed progressive phasing out of grant for major repairs and the service deficits which many associations are incurring.
There is an important contradiction. Associations that take part in schemes funded by private borrowing as well as by public grant will be expected to bear major risks, because the grant is likely to be determined at the beginning of a scheme and will not be increased to take account of unforeseen increased costs. To expect associations to bear that risk and at the same time to take away their only prospect of building up a surplus is not only inequitable but contradicts the Government's strategy.
How can the Government tell housing associations to be financially independent and at the same time give themselves power to raid their reserves when it is vital for the associations to retain surplus rental income so as to bear the risks of private finance without raising rents? If the Government claw back those reserves, housing associations will have only one way to raise more funds, and that will be by demanding more from their tenants in increased rents. For many of those tenants housing benefit will not be available because they are working, which will mean them leaving that form of accommodation.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The only revenue that housing associations have comes from rents and they can build up surpluses for reinvestment purposes, repairs and so on. Taking that from them will be like taking the crutches from a cripple and telling him to stand on his own two feet.

Mr. Hughes: I agree. Having said that they want housing associations to be independent, the Government give them the facility to walk, allow them to build up some reserves and then raid that money. The housing

association movement must be extremely unhappy at the thought of the Secretary of State being able to raid those reserves whenever he wishes.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: If an association is given a grant to get started and, having got started, builds up reserves which are surplus to its needs, how can they be described as crutches? Surpluses are not crutches.

Mr. Hughes: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present for the earlier debate. The Government claim that they want to use private finance to supplement public finance—I do not dissent from that—to strengthen housing associations. Any reserves built up will be needed, especially by medium and small associations, to avoid them asking the Government in times of difficulty to bail them out. They need the cushion that reserve funds provide. Indeed, the Government agree that without that cushion the private sector will not invest.
I wish to refer to two letters, the first of which was written by an ordained minister in Luton. It was sent today to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and copied to the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), with a copy to me as my party's spokesman on these issues.
This is part of the letter from the Rev. W. J. Salmon:
The government intend to encourage the sale of council estates to Housing Associations, and claim that rents will be similar to those at present paid to the Local Authority. At the same time the Housing Corporation are reducing their financial support to Housing Associations, encouraging them to find on the open market. The Associations are therefore having to pay a high rate of interest, which they can only recoup through increased rents. The experience of Housing Associations is that this has forced rents up to unacceptable levels. It would seem to me that these two moves are incompatible.
The author of the letter makes it clear that he is not a politician, because he ends by saying:
I write not as a belligerent prophet, or a 'Moaning Minnie', but as a Christian Minister seeking to serve to the best of my ability those among whom my Lord has placed me.
He was writing about Luton, which is hardly regarded as the least affluent part of the United Kingdom. Clearly he understands the problems of reducing funding and not protecting people against the consequences.
3.30 am
The other letter was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) after he had visited Bradford earlier this year. The letter is from Mr. Leaper, who is the regional director of Anchor housing association. He may have written to other hon. Members about the matter. He wrote after my hon. Friend had been to Saddlebrook court, which is an Anchor housing association development in his area. He said:
I am grateful for the interest you have shown in Saddlebrook Court by visiting it today. It is, unfortunately, likely to be one of the last category 2 sheltered developments Anchor is able to provide, if the new Housing Bill becomes law and there are no amendments to the new Housing Benefit regulations.
Many Anchor tenants have already lost up to –20 per week in Housing Benefit as a result of the recent changes in the Housing Benefit regulations.
If Saddlebrook Court were built today at the proposed HAG level of 50‥ (it actually enjoys 91·39‥ HAG) the current basic rent of £14·80 for a single flat would rise to over £34.


I am sure that hon. Members who represent Bradford and the surrounding areas could confirm this.
Rents at this sort of level simply are not on for pensioners of modest means and I hope you will use every effort to persuade the government of the need to improve the Housing Benefit arrangements.
I am sure you will have been bombarded with criticism of the proposed legislation and I apologise for yet another letter to read, but I feel that the issues are too important for me to miss the opportunity to make you aware of our concern.
My hon. Friend asked me to raise this although I have not visited the development. He intends to contribute to the debate on part IV because he has had experience of the Scottish provision. He is aware, like all hon. Members on this side of the House and, to be fair, some Tory Members, that we cannot take away the protection that is needed for reserves and funding that have been built up over the years without a clear implication that rents will go up.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman might suggest in answer to the letters that he has received that the only way to get the Government to move is to drop one of their own Tridents on them. I am not sure whether even a hydrogen bomb would shift them. They are so dogmatic and so uncaring about the needs of housing associations that one despairs at times about their lack of Christian charity. Certainly they have not shown any since 1979. Yet they continue to argue that they are helping the poorer people and the associations to stand on their own feet, when the reverse is true.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have quoted a minister of the church and a professional in Britain's second largest housing association. They are neither of them politicians but are concerned with meeting need. They say in letters to hon. Members that it is vitally important that resources can be built up and protected.
They say also that if the Government are serious about wanting housing associations to play a greater role—and the Government certainly intend that local councils should play a lesser role, and have always accepted that there will be a large rented sector however much success they have with the right to buy—it is vital that there are affordable rents and adequate funds to ensure that tenants do not have to bear the high and substantal risks of the Government's policy. If the Government are not prepared to ensure that, there can be only one implication. It is that tenants will be priced out of the very market which the Government allege they are trying to create for them.

Mr. Waldegrave: This debate has been of a looking glass nature, because both the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) know that their arguments do not accurately reflect the real situation. The existing GRF power to claw back funds was not invented by the Government but was imposed by the Public Accounts Committee, and some Opposition Members may have been signatories to the report in question. Certainly it was an all-party Committee.
The replacement power contained in clause 50 will permit to be done some of the things which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants, and which could not be done under the 1985 Act. The GRF does not allow us to negotiate with the associations, as we should do to ensure that they have proper sinking funds, can deal with repairs and so on. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey knows that we

are already having important discussions with the National Federation of Housing Associations. That is how the surplus rent fund will work.
Neither the Public Accounts Committee nor the House would thank the Government for reverting to a system under which the surpluses——

Mr. Redmond: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: If I may complete my argument, the hon. Gentleman may find that I will answer his point.
There have been some very jolly ideas about what should be done with the surpluses. One was that they could in some mysterious way be used to pay off the balance of payments deficit. I have not figured out how that can be done using internally generated funds, but never mind. The surpluses will be returned to the Housing Corporation and then ploughed back into the housing association movement. As the hon. Member for Southwark arid Bermondsey well knows, that is what was done with surpluses collected under the GRF system and will be under the new system as well. The funds will not be taken out of housing.
The argument is that, if the total surpluses are left where they fall because the grant has turned out to be moire generous than was calculated when the project was put together, one association will enjoy a windfall while others who may need the money more will receive less. However, that line of argument—whether in respect of the GRF or the new system—has no connection with reality. I repeat that we do not intend that the rent surplus fund system will apply to schemes funded with a mixture of public and private finance. A good many of the other arguments we have heard fall on that.
The clause is not as exciting, let alone as dangerous, nor does it have such wide implications, as Opposition Members have suggested. I suspect that, if we did not have it, we would be rightly criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and perhaps by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)—whom I promised to allow to intervene.

Mr. Redmond: There is some argument about how the surpluses arise in the first instance. Surpluses can only arise through rents. Is it the Department's intention to instruct those housing associations to increase their rents to enable the Government to claw back surpluses, and what does the Minister consider is a surplus? Housing associations may well be gathering some money together for a capital expenditure project. Would lie allow them to carry that money forward from year one over five or ten years to enable them to obtain the necessary finance to embark on that capital project?

Mr. Waldegrave: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, who is learned in these matters, is not as confused as he pretends to be. He knows where the surpluses arise from. Most housing association schemes are financed with a conventional mortgage, plus HAG. HAG is set high at the beginning because there is no rent income. If interest rates and rents move so that less uprun money is needed than was predicted, there is an unexpected surplus. That is why the PAC rightly said that in those circumstances, since it did not arise from anything that the housing association was doing in terms of its own or Government policy, we had to claw that back. We then put it back into the ADP of the Housing Corporation to go to other associations


which need the money more. Everyone who knows this subject knows where such surpluses come from. They have come for many years; that is why the PAC asked us to introduce this system.
We are now saying that under the present legislation we cannot do what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wants, which is to build up sinking funds against capital expenditure and major repairs that may fall to be done. Indeed, it may be right to say that there should be some element of building up reserves, particularly to enable the smaller associations that have been mentioned to borrow on the market, as we hope they too will be able to do.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there are no nefarious purposes in this, as I think they know in their heart of hearts. Indeed, if we did not introduce such a provision, we would very likely be in trouble with them when they were wearing different hats.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Why then is it necessary to include in subsection (6) not only the power for the Secretary of State to appropriate or apply funds for purposes that he specifies, but also to require associations to pay them to him, which is a different and much more far-reaching provision? In addition, will he confirm that the National Federation of Housing Associations is in favour of the abolition and non-replacement of the grant redemption fund system and is not keen on a far-ranging power that allows the Government to retrieve whatever they might choose at any particular time?

Mr. Waldegrave: Not surprisingly, the associations have always been in favour of allowing extra surpluses to accrue where they fall. It is much easier for those associations to argue to keep unexpected surpluses than for other associations who have not received the money from the redestribution to argue for that. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the PAC's arguments on that.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: If I heard the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey correctly, he said that the Bill would drive up some housing association rents from £14 a week to £34 a week. Can my hon. Friend refute that allegation and explain why the Bill will not do that?

Mr. Waldegrave: We had a long discussion earlier about rents. We are now talking about the rent surplus fund, but nothing in the rent surplus fund does what my hon. Friend is asking about.

Mr. Battle: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have said enough already in his magnificent speech. I hope that, having heard that a large part of that fine oratorical effort was entirely misplaced, he may now consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister is trying to get away with the granting of extra powers to the Secretary of State by suggesting that the Public Accounts Committee imposes something on the Government. The PAC, as he knows full well, has no power to impose anything on them. I dare say

that I could pluck half a dozen reports from the PAC that have never even received a response from the Government, let alone been accepted by them.
Obviously some reports have more merit than others. The Government make a selection, rejecting some arguments and accepting others. The notion put forward by the Minister that the repayment of GRF surpluses should be accepted by the Government willy-nilly because of a recommendation by the PAC simply does not wash. If he had said that they had considered it a reasonable recommendation and followed it, that would be one argument, but it is not true to say that the Government had to accept it—that it was imposed on the House. [Interruption.] That is what the Minister said. I have got it down.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am perfectly prepared to say to the hon. Gentleman that the PAC suggested the proposal and argued for it, and that the arguments were overwhelming.

Mr. Cryer: That is a change from what the Minister said at first. He said that it was imposed by the PAC, and it will be in Hansard. That is mistaken: all Select Committees can merely recommend. But if the Minister is now saying that he accepts the PAC's argument, that is entirely different.
The Minister went on to say that the funds are returned to the Housing Corporation for reallocation to the housing sector. That, of course, is understood and welcomed. Under clause 47, however, the Housing Corporation has fairly wide-ranging and arbitrary powers to reduce, suspend or cancel grants. We are confronted by a pretty arbitrary sort of Government.
The Housing Corporation is run by appointees, and nearly all the Government's appointees have been in line with their philosophy. It is a characteristic of the Government that they have been careful to appoint people who share their political philosophy. As a matter of fact I do not entirely dissent from that; the philosophy on the basis of which the Government appoint people just happens to be the wrong one. It means that an arbitrary Government can encourage the Housing Corporation to use the arbitrary powers incorporated in the legislation. At present housing associations may build up prudent surpluses that they can spend on repairs and on development of one sort or another connected with their properties, but the powers for the Secretary of State that are embodied in clauses 6, 7 and 8, which we seek to remove, reduce that discretion.
The Minister argues that the discretion should be removed by action of the Secretary of State, so that he can then instruct the Housing Corporation to have the money, make a judgment and allocate the funds that it considers in the best interests of housing in the housing association sector. That is a very odd philosophy for a Government who believe in the kind of voluntary aided sector which it could be argued that housing associations represent. It is an odd philosophy from a Government who believe in allowing decision-making to develop in what they fondly describe as the enterprise culture. The Government claim that a central organisation should determine where surpluses are distributed instead of leaving the housing association with at least some discretion to develop surpluses when it believes that, in the circumstances, it needs a surplus to develop flats because of local conditions.
Perhaps the Housing Corporation will take local needs into account. However, surely some discretion should be allowed to the housing associations instead of the Secretary of State giving notice to an association under this part of the Bill requiring it to pay—with interest if demanded —the outstanding rent surplus fund at the end of a period of account.
Our other reservation is that we know that the Secretary of State is a fairly arbitrary Secretary of State. We are not convinced that he would use those powers with the understanding and delicacy that is required because he is not known for his understanding and delicacy. The Minister who replied to this debate did so briefly without the characteristic allocation of time devoted to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). In different circumstances, the Minister might have devoted more time to it.
However, the Minister does not have responsibility for these matters. Although certain work is allocated to him, he knows that the civil servants will tell him that the Secretary of State has the legal responsibility to determine the notice. The Minister of State may recommend to the Secretary of State, but in the final analysis the Secretary of State has the power. When the House grants legislative power to Secretaries of State, the powers leave the House and are vested in the Secretary of State who holds office at the time.
We must be very careful. We must bear in mind that, no matter how liberal a furrow the Minister tries to plough, the fact is that the Secretary of State is an illiberal Secretary of State.

Mr. Winnick: He is Stalinist.

Mr. Cryer: I would not put the Secretary of State quite in that category. In fact, he might feel vaguely insulted if I did, although that would not prevent me from doing so. However, that description would be inaccurate.
In many respects the Secretary of State is the author of the current satanism spreading through the land, called Thatcherism or monetarism. He is determined, and therefore we must consider his powers and his ability from time to time to give notice to housing associations. Therefore I suggest that the modest amendments to remove clauses 6, 7 and 8 should be supported.
I will not be long because to some degree we have dealt adequately with the clause and I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak and I can see several of them straining at the metaphorical leash.
I want to refer to Anchor housing, mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). When the hon. Gentleman replies to the letter from the regional director of Anchor housing, I hope that he explains that the proposal to increase rents, possibly to produce a surplus fund to develop Anchor housing units in my constituency and elsewhere, has been made at the most inappropriate time because housing benefit has been withdrawn in varying degrees from many people. I think that the letter says that up to £20 has been withdrawn from individual tenants.
Therefore, it is not a clever time to start the process for increasing rents through the fair rents procedure. As the changes in housing benefit regulations were not a secret —it was known that they would be introduced after 11 April—Anchor housing might have been more judicious in applying for the increases well after the housing benefits

had been brought into operation and the cuts were known. I have received a petition from tenants expressing anxiety at housing benefit cuts and pointing out what difficulties will arise.
If rent surpluses are to be redistributed by the Housing Corporation, it will be to areas of need, according to the Minister's explanation. The redistribution will be a curious phenomenon because the Housing Corporation will be redistributing from need to need. I do not know of any Anchor housing, for example, where the tenants are living in the lap of luxury or of any rent surplus that can be more equitably moved from them elsewhere. All the tenants that I can think of in the north will be in difficulties because of rent increases and housing benefit cuts. Therefore, the notion that the Housing Corporation will have this redistributive effect, without further details from the Minister, does not seem to be convincing. Tenants in my constituency are worried about the changes in housing benefit, rent increases and service charge increases and they have written to me about them. Anchor housing has not given a convincing reply.
In addition, Anchor will have to face the effects of this legislation on already slim administrative resources. One anxiety advanced by the Opposition relates to the difficulties that will be forced on tenants by the Secretary of State exercising what he fondly imagines to be a redistributive measure through the Housing Corporation by clawing back housing associations' surpluses. Those surpluses will accrue to prudent associations charging rents which they think will give them sufficient income not only to meet repairs and maintenance, but to produce a modest surplus to provide for needed developments. The position is so generally unsatisfactory that we should vote for the amendment which removes these subsections.
I am also worried that the Secretary of State is given absolute powers. The Minister may say that that is standard practice and it has happened before, so we should carry on. The Bill states that he may
from time to time give notice to an association to which this section applies.
Civil servants like absolute powers because they do not have to bother preparing briefs or do anything much except go into a room in Whitehall, Victoria street or Marsham street and shove a document before a Minister and say, "Look, Minister, we have calculated that housing associations have £x million surplus, so you should give notice that this should be clawed back because the Housing Corporation says that it needs development money and it can best make a judgment." The Secretary of State then simply has to give notice without justifying it outside the cosseted rooms of Whitehall. That is less than satisfactory.

4 am

Mr. Tony Banks: Did my hon. Friend do that when he was a Minister?

Mr. Cryer: Whenever I wanted to do anything I found that a successsion of civil servants wanted to talk to me for long enough to stop me doing so. When I was a Minister, the problem was not to get me to do things but to stop me doing things. In my leisure moments, when I wash aside the misery I underwent when I was a Minister, I am proud of the fact that civil servants were trying to outwit me all the time.

Mr. Redmond: The Minister said that the Government intended to take surpluses from those associations that held large ones because if they were allowed to keep them other associations would suffer. The impression was that such money could be redistributed to those associations that were living from hand to mouth. The Minister suggested that he intended to rob Peter to pay Paul. If I have got that wrong, perhaps my hon. Friend or the Minister could clarify the position. There has been much discussion about interest rate charges, but I am not sure about the level of the interest rate. British Coal borrows money from the Government and pays a damn sight higher rate of interest than if it borrowed on the open market. How will the rate of interest be clarified?

Mr. Cryer: In the clause, the rate of interest is determined by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury—that keeps a grip on the Treasury. That means that a deputy secretary will have a chat on the telephone with somebody at the Treasury—of course, on the same grade—and they will reach agreement on the interest rate. The deputy secretary will put a piece of paper in front of the Secretary of State, tell him that it is the interest rate to be charged and that the Treasury has given consent. That means that a civil servant at the Treasury has put a bit of paper in front of a Treasury Minister, who has nodded and signed the paper. That is how it is organised.
The Bill does not give absolute power to the Secretary of State, but that power is qualified only by a friend of the Secretary of State, a Treasury Minister. They are both guided by the Civil Service.
The Government have introduced a great deal of complicated legislation and in the maze they are finding it easy simply to say, "We will give the Secretary of State power." That takes such power away from this place and makes it easier for the Government to exercise such powers. I am not in favour of that—I favour scrutiny by this House or scrutiny by Committees of the House. That is another reason why I believe that we should vote against the clause.

Mr. Michael Welsh: If the Secretary of State has absolute power, does my hon. Friend agree with what Lord Acton said about absolute power?

Mr. Cryer: That is a problem. Those who advise Secretaries of State use that power in an arbitrary fashion. Often Secretaries of State, especially in Labour Governments, do not have the countervailing information to match the power of the inner, secret constitution of our system of government.
I conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was right: this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Housing associations will, by and large, apply their money to the worthy objective of developing housing in any case. Their surpluses will be taken from them and given to other housing associations that are not in quite such a good seam and do not possess overwhelming surpluses. They will be given the money to develop housing. That obscures the important underlying need for an injection of new money, so that housing associations can develop both surpluses and housing.
Local authorities should be given new money too, instead of being continually cut back. These clauses will allow the Secretary of State to supervise a diminishing amount of money in the housing association sector, whose

effect will be to cut back something that has played a useful part in providing rented accommodation for people who in the main could not otherwise obtain decent accommodation—certainly not from private landlords, whose standards are variable, to say the least.

Mr. Redmond: The general trend is to give housing associations money to allow them to develop their stock, improve their standards and possibly take over council houses. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is contradictory and morally wrong of the Government to run down local authority involvement in housing, to reduce the money that local authorities spend on maintaining housing stock and to restrict the numbers of dwellings that local authorities can provide for senior citizens? In a range of other issues, the Government have said that we need competing forces for the benefit of the consumer. If there is only one sector, freedom of choice for the consumer will not exist.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a provision to allow the housing associations to generate their own funds for further development and for redistribution through the Housing Corporation. The Government's policy is to cut local authority expenditure on housing. Every local authority can testify to that. The waiting lists for council houses for rent are increasing and the amount of money available for new build has decreased, or certainly failed to increase, year by year. Since 1979 local authority expenditure on housing has been massively cut back. Because of that, housing associations are under pressure to provide more housing. So my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West was right to say that these clauses will bring pressure to bear for increased rents, which will be used to generate funds for further development.
To illustrate what I mean, I give the example of people who have been to see me. Those people struggle from week to week to make ends meet. A couple who came to see me said that they were pensioners and had one week's holiday a year. They do not go to the Costa Brava or Costa del Sol but to Morecambe or Blackpool, to a cheap boarding house, because that is all that their income permits. They told me that a holiday can no longer be taken because of the cuts in housing benefit. Of course the Government will say that only pensioners in the City should be allowed to have holidays and that workers should sit in grim, stark rooms and be thankful that they have a miserable gas fire to look at. That is a reality for many people.

Mr. Allen McKay: I appreciate the work carried out, and the help given me by my hon. Friend when he was a Minister. We are talking about a surplus in rents. We can only get a rent surplus by an increase in efficiency of the organisation or by making rents too high. The Minister says that a surplus should be moved into another area and should not be spent on those who created the surplus. We are only a step away from the Minister saying to a council that it should create a surplus on rent and plough the money into the rate fund.

Mr. Cryer: In essence, that is what the Government are doing in the housing association sector. They could apply that policy to local authorities.
The people who look for rented accommodation are those who cannot afford mortgages. Young couples often do not have the money for a mortgage. Certainly in


London and the south-east the mortgages required are astronomical. Young unemployed couples who want to buy a house, even in the north where prices are lower but are regrettably catching up on the south-east, have no alternative but to look for rented accommodation. They simply cannot afford to buy. They will be faced with a housing association sector that is increasing rents to generate its own developments of more housing and a local authority sector that is being cut. That will force people to go to the housing associations, and the associations will be forced to increase rents.

Mr. Tony Banks: The only reason that I earlier asked my hon. Friend about what he used to do when he was a Minister was to draw to the attention of younger hon. Members the fact that he used to be a Minister. He was a very good Minister and that was the history lesson that I wanted to teach the younger and more enthusiastic hon. Members.
Last Friday I had a case in my advice surgery that proves my hon. Friend's point. A constituent fell into arrears with the mortgage payments and the house was repossessed. The local authority had to put that person into bed-and-breakfast accommodation at a cost greater than the mortgage repayments. That is the lunacy that we are getting ourselves into.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. If the Government had any sense they would put money into new build houses to be constructed by housing associations and local authorities. That would save the enormous sums that local authorities have to pay for bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The victims of the Government's economic policies, the three million people who have been made unemployed and who face difficulty in paying mortgages, are picked up by the local authorities and helped with council accommodation. However, the local authorities are under pressure. It is a disgraceful situation and has been brought about by the wretched policies of the most disgraceful Right-wing Government we have ever experienced.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am pleased that that tribute has been paid to my hon. Friend's record while a member of the Labour Government. He will confirm that the Labour Government's record between 1974 and 1979 on housing associations in Scotland was that of a more than fivefold increase in spending on housing associations resulting in a diversity of housing for rent. On the other hand, the Government's record has been a paltry 50 per cent. increase in eight years. Is that not a lamentable record and a contrast that goes to the heart of the Bill?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of some statistics about housing associations in Scotland which, I confess, were at the back of my mind. The Labour Government encouraged housing associations and local authorities to build houses. That is shown by the figures for homelessness, which have shot up since 1979. An underlying economically deprived class is developing, comprising victims of the Government's economic and social policies and cuts in local authority provision.
4.15 am
I do not wish to extend my contribution, but I emphasise my reservations about subsections (6), (7) and (8). If the House approves their deletion, but the Secretary

of State wants some reserve powers, the Government could come back via the other place, of which route they are so fond—and that is hardly surprising as they brought in 138 members of the geriatric wing of the Palace of Westminster to ensure a majority for the poll tax Bill—and table an amendment that would, for example, give the Secretary of State power to place a motion on the Order Paper requiring the associations to pay as provided for under subsection (6), with all its powers.
At least, that would be the subject of a motion and would therefore be debated in the House. It would be only an hour-and-a-half debate. It would be unusual procedure —in fact, I do not think that we have ever required a Secretary of State simply to say, "I am giving notice, and I want a motion approving this." However, it would not be a bad thing. We might have to alter the procedures a little, but if we are to get any sort of grip on the Executive, we must stop giving Secretaries of State the power to do virtually anything that they wish. We must restore some power to this place.
When television comes into the Chamber, it will add to the pressure on Ministers. I voted for television cameras so that attention would be focused on this place. Committees do important work, but the Chamber is the most important place and it should be used to provide supervision and scrutiny. It helps Secretaries of State too. because they know that, if they have to come to this place and be scrutinised, they must know their subject pretty well. They must have the argument at their finger tips. because one of the virtues of this place is that it gives Ministers a rough ride if they do not.

Mr. Hawkins: I cannot believe it.

Mr. Cryer: The Government contain their complement of incompetents, but on occasions this place can be incisive, scrutinise Ministers and give them a rough ride. My hon. Friends will remember that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was the Minister and the Tory party were in opposition, there was sustained hissing from the Conservative Members and piles of questions and points of order. My right hon. Friend was certainly put to the test, and he came through it magnificently. Ministers must know their subject thoroughly when coming to this place to answer questions. I do not underrate the power of this place to exercise scrutiny if it so chooses.

Mr. Hawkins: It would be interesting to put the hon. Gentleman's supposition to the test tonight. Earlier, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) alleged that some housing association rents would be put up from £14 to £34 a week. I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether that was true. The hon. Gentleman's belief appears to be that by asking questions of Ministers, one receives answers. I shall be greatly interested to discover whether nay hon. Friend will answer my question. We shall then know whether the hon. Gentleman is correct or whether my more cynical view is correct.

Mr. Cryer: I do not judge the whole issue by a single question. However, the Minister could stand up now and guarantee that there will not be an increase from £14 to £34 a week. He has a couple of civil servants available who can wave notes at him so that he can find some form of words to use. It is all part of the testing process. Questions


can be asked, and if they are not answered the hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions. Rents will increase under this Government, and we have been saying that since the debate on the Bill began.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I understand my hon. Friend's comment about this Chamber being a place for incisive debate. I know that he is doing his best, but I do not think that anyone would describe tonight's debate as incisive. Is he aware that the Secretary of State is no longer with us? Apparently, he is the author of the legislation, which probably accounts for the number of Government amendments. Will my hon. Friend comment on why the Secretary of State is not here to answer his serious points about the Secretary of State's personal legislation? Instead, the poor unfortunate Minister of State—who probably does not agree with a word in the legislation anyway—has to plough his way through this God-awful rubbish and cannot answer any of my hon. Friend's questions.

Mr. Cryer: I cannot believe that the Minister is so cynical as to support the legislation with his vote while fundamentally disagreeing with it. I am sure that if he felt that way he would have a word with the Prime Minister and resign from the Government. That is the honourable course to take if his leader produces legislation with which he does not agree.
The three clauses give the Secretary of State a great deal of power and we should give the Government the opportunity to table an amendment in the other place that would still give the Secretary of State powers, but qualified by scrutiny in this place. If the right hon. Gentleman has indeed written this legislation, I am not surprised that it gives him such unqualified powers. There is, therefore, an even more urgent necessity to get rid of the subsections by voting for the amendment.

Mr. Battle: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply to the debate on rents. First, he said that we had already had a debate on rents and, secondly, that the clause would not have any effect on rents. That must be true because the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) voted for the clause on rents. He could not have known what he was voting for because it is the very clause that will put up rents. The Minister could not refute that in our earlier debate.

Mr. Cryer: I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman. I am always pleased that, in spite of having been bludgeoned into the appropriate lobby by the Conservative Whip, he realises that he has made an error and, having listened to the debate, has begun to recognise the horrendous consequences of the clause for which he voted. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey raised the question of increasing housing association rents from £14 to £34 per week, and he is keen to intervene on that point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is an important point and, as I understand it, the inquiry was made in good faith. The figures were given by a housing professional and happen to be for the region covering Bradford. The second largest housing association in the area asserts that the combined effect of the Bill and the changes in subsidy and housing benefit will be an increase of between £14 and £34. That point was put to the Minister and he did not dissent from

it. The matter should be pursued and I will willingly let the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) have a copy of the correspondence. The Government must answer the questions, because the combined changes will produce such increases in rent levels. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will be keen to ensure that the Minister is not let off the hook on the good example of the effect of this loosely drafted piece of legislation.

Mr. Cryer: The Anchor housing association tenants who have written to me are already in the £14-plus increase bracket, because of the combined effects of rent increases proposed by the housing association and the cuts in housing benefit. I do not claim that they are in the £34 bracket that I have come across, but I can assure the House that I have received many heated representations from righteously angry constituents who face massive rent increases by virtue of that combination of changes. I am hardly surprised that the Government are not able to give that guarantee. I shall give way to the Minister if he wishes to intervene to say that the rent increases would not be of the order of £14 to £34.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to point out the level of potential rent increases. I have received similar representations from my constituents. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), who raised the matter, did not say that he was against the rent increases. As I understood it, he was happy that such large increases should go through. If I do him an injustice, I am sure that he will rise and say that he is opposed to housing association tenants being forced to pay through the nose because of the Government's legislation and presumably he will vote with us when the opportunity arises.

Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for High Peak in a moment, but I want first to reiterate my comment that he can make his position clear, thanks to my innate generosity, and to say, secondly, that he will have the opportunity to vote against the clauses by voting for the amendment which will have the salutary effect of sending a quiver through the Government and also ensuring that, if they so choose, they can bring back some modifications through the Lords which will replace the arbitrary powers given to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hawkins: I did not imply in any sense that I favoured rent increases of 250 per cent., or of the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I was merely trying to find out, on behalf of my constituents in High Peak and other constituents elsewhere, whether the hon. Gentleman's allegations were correct. It would be nice to know for the record whether the allegations are true or false.

Mr. Cryer: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened to make clear his position and, moreover, sent off the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who was whispering in his ear, telling him, I suspect, not to make such a fuss about those massive rent increases which will occur under this legislation but to keep his mouth shut. Some credit is due even to the Government Benches, for the fact that he sent the PPS away with a flea in his ear to scurry around on behalf of the Minister, sending messages to Conservative Members that they should keep their mouths shut because all of a sudden the Government are concerned.
However, there are not many Conservative Members for him to be concerned about. There is one in the far corner who is taking a close interest in the—Bill[Laughter.]—and four others. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) took a close interest when he wanted to go to New Zealand to watch trees grow. However, this is a different time and a different place.

Mr. Winnick: Although my hon. Friend has somewhat unfairly woken the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), does he agree that having a sleep over there is far more comfortable than the situation of people who, less than a quarter of a mile away are having to sleep in cardboard boxes because of the lack of accommodation and whose plight will not be improved by this rotten Bill?

Mr. Cryer: I was saying that the Member for High Peak, who raised with his Minister the question about the increase from £14 to £34, was showing a commendable interest in the Bill and in subsections (6), (7) and (8) about which we are worried. The effect of the clawback that the Secretary of State has powers to impose under clause 50 will force up rents because the Secretary of State will seek to use the provisions to obtain income for redistribution to housing associations for the development of further housing.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
That is why we are delighted that at least one Conservative Member is taking an interest, albeit somewhat belatedly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West has pointed out. If only he had taken an interest earlier—he could have approached the Parliamentary Private Secretary and said, "Put the Minister's bag down and listen to me for a moment. Have a word with the Minister and tell him to stop some of this wretched legislation." But, alack and alas, the revelation has come a little late—although, as we always say, "Better late than never."

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend's expertise in these matters is second to none and, like other hon. Members tonight, he has dwelt in detail on the effects of the subsections and why they should be deleted. Do not Conservative Members want to have it both ways? On the one hand, they want to reassure their tenant voters that they will keep rents at relatively low levels and that they will certainly not cause them to go shooting through the roof. On the other hand, however, they are telling their backers—their landlords and speculative investors—that they want rents to shoot up so that their profits will shoot up as well.
By exposing the contradictions, my hon. Friend has galvanised the one Tory Back Bencher who is paying any attention into action to try to defend his own constituency interests at the price of exposing his hon. Friends to the economic fact that they do not just want rents to double—they want them to more than double, so that their friends' profits can shoot up.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that this legislation, which seems so academic and remote, is a cloak for rent increases in the housing association sector.

Rents are increasing in any case in the local authority sector to build up a plateau so that private landlords who are benefiting under this Government, not least from the nefarious business expansion scheme, will see rents climb and their profits increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out that, not far from here, there are people who have no alternative but to sleep fitfully through the night, as some of us are doing. But we have comfortable beds available and those people are on the pavements because of the massive increase in homelessness brought about by the Government's vicious, anti-local government attitude and their careless attitude towards the housing associations. Housing associations have helped to fill a gap. With encouragement and support, local authorities could have provided the necessary housing without the use of housing associations. But housing associations exist, we stand on this bridge, and we must do our best for them. I am pretty sure that all the members of the housing associations know on which side of the Chamber—ours—their friends sit. The managers, organisers, members of boards and, most of all, tenants know that their defenders are on the Labour side.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the role that housing associations wish to play in alleviating and ending homelessness, especially in inner-city areas such as London where they deal specifically with those people who sleep on the streets. Is my hon. Friend aware that homelessness is beginning to gnaw at the Government a little? Instead of doing anything about it, they apparently now have friends in central London who encourage use of the Public Order Act 1986 to drive away people who sleep in cardboard boxes. A group of lawyers at Lincoln's Inn are petitioning Camden council to shift these "dossers", as they put it, out of the way because it damages the tourist trade and they do not like waking up in the morning and finding people sleeping on the grass outside their houses. Is that not the ultimate condemnation of the divisions in Tory Britain?

Mr. Cryer: I agree. That point may seem remote from subsections (6), (7) and (8), but the potential rent increases to produce the surpluses which the Secretary of State can claw back will increase homelessness. Who would imagine that there is likely to be a homeless problem in Dulwich, near the £500,000 fortified gates behind which the rich elite live because they are frightened?

Mr. Tony Banks: The Dulwich bunker.

Mr. Cryer: For the Prime Minister, there is the Dulwich bunker, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Banks: Neo-Georgian.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is producing so many words that I cannot repeat them all to get them on the record, but I know that he wants to speak later. He has a valuable contribution to make, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), who can testify to everything that I have said about housing associations.
Instead of using a mean-minded approach in this legislation, the Government should inject money into housing. There is a need and a desire among people for a decent roof over their heads. There is no reason why that need and desire should not be met.
The Minister may say, "We are short of money." One can reel off the billions of pounds that the Government are spending: £1·7 billion in the last Budget in tax concessions to the better-off, £1·5 billion for Sizewell B; another £1·5 billion for Hinkley B—nuclear power stations which we neither need nor want and which are potential sources of hazard—and £11 billion for Trident nuclear weapons, which breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I could go on and on; the money is there if there is the political will. The Opposition say to the Government: get some political will to get some money into housing.

Mr. Winnick: If our proceedings were being televised, viewers would see the interest that is being taken by Labour Members in the whole issue of housing associations and the lack of interest on the part of Conservative Members. Indeed, apart from the Minister, nobody has spoken from the Government Benches, and some minutes ago there were present one Government Back Bencher, the Minister, his PPS and a Whip.

Mr. Corbyn: What about the one who was asleep?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must relate their remarks to the amendment that is before the House.

Mr. Winnick: The one who was asleep is still asleep.
The assurances that we have been given by the Minister about clawing back the surplus rent funds of housing associations have failed to satisfy us. We have drawn a distinction between the views on that issue of the Secretary of State and those of the Minister for Housing and Planning.
If those in housing hardship—in many cases in housing misery—cannot be rehoused by local authorities and cannot obtain a mortgage, the housing associations may provide the only solution. In the main, those who work for housing associations are dedicated and are not motivated by profit and a desire to see tenants pay the largest possible rents.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the pay levels of staff employed by housing associations are considerably lower than the remunerations in equivalent posts in local government? But that has not diminished the dedication with which they undertake their duties.

Mr. Winnick: They are, in the main, dedicated. They believe that they have a role to play in helping to provide adequate rented accommodation for people in need. There has been no dispute between local authorities and housing associations. Housing associations have not asked for more responsibilities or told local authorities that they want to take over large amounts of their housing stock. There has been a partnership. In the main, the people involved in housing associations recognise that the main supplier of rented accommodation is the pubic sector, but the housing associations will provide the additional accommodation that local authorities are not able to provide.
4.45 am
Of course, in the last eight or nine years the position has changed to the extent that local authorities such as mine have not been able to build any houses or flats. Therefore,

the function of housing associations has become more important. I emphasise that point because we are dealing with people who cannot obtain mortgages.

Mr. Michael Welsh: That is an important issue. If the Bill is passed, the Secretary of State will be able to raid housing associations at any time he desires and take away the rents. Is this not similar to what happened to local authorities which sold houses? They have a large fund of money but are not allowed to invest it in housing and repairs. I hope that I am not giving ideas to the Minister, but I am afraid that the Government may be thinking of raiding the funds of housing associations.

Mr. Winnick: We should all bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has made because we are dealing with a Secretary of State who, unfortunately, takes an irresponsible position on local authority and housing association revenue.
I was saying a moment ago that we are dealing with people who cannot obtain a mortgage. I am in favour of people being about to buy their own houses. I see nothing wrong with it. I do so myself. But at least there is consensus between the two sides of the House that a substantial number of people, albeit a minority, are not in that position, especially in London and the south-east where it is virtually impossible to buy any type of accommodation, even the smallest one-bedroom flat, at under £60,000. In the west midlands, prices are increasing, though at a slower rate.
We have to find ways and means of ensuring that people do not sleep in cardboard boxes a quarter of a mile from here. They are not all tramps or irresponsible people. Even now, at a quarter to five in the morning, people are sleeping out just a quarter of a mile from here. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) smiles. He probably has a comfortable home. For all I know, he may have more than one home. If he wishes to intervene, I will give way.
The people who are sleeping in those conditions include individuals who have come to London from areas of high unemployment to seek work, but they cannot find any rented accommodation that they can afford. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is proper accommodation for all who require accommodation to rent.
The Minister will no doubt tell us that the purpose of what we are debating is to provide more rented accommodation to ensure that people do not have to sleep in cardboard boxes and that families do not have to spend weeks or months, or sometimes even longer, in squalid bed-and-breakfast hostels. The very point that we are justified in making is that the Bill does not provide a solution for people with limited means.
I believe that part of the reason for the clause that we are debating, and the manner in which housing associations will be forced to charge market rents so that thee will be a surplus for the Secretary of State to claw back, is to ensure that as many tenants as possible are driven into the private rented sector. That is the purpose of it all. On Second Reading the Secretary of State did not shy away from it. He stated that the Bill's main purpose, in so far as it provides for rented accommodation, relates to the private sector. He did not spend much time praising housing associations; I cannot recall him saying anything about them at all on Second Reading on 30 November.
In the past few weeks, we have learnt of many tragic cases, particularly involving pensioners, of housing benefit being substantially reduced. That should make us all the more concerned that housing associations are not forced to apply market rents, particularly in those many cases where housing benefit will be insufficient—where it exists at all—to meet them. Housing benefit has been drastically reduced, and rent officers will have to ensure that tenants do not pay the level of rents that landlords will be demanding and at which housing benefit would be denied.
There is no doubt that the Government's policy is aimed at forcing local authorities to end their role in housing. I put down a parliamentary question asking for an explanation of the Government's role in local authority housing, and the reply was that local authorities are no longer considered to be the necessary providers of rented accommodation. So far as the Government are concerned, the role of local authorities is a diminishing one. Later we shall be challenging the Government's attempt to undermine and diminish the volume of public sector rented accommodation by transferring it to the private sector. What concerns me are the Government's intentions in respect of housing associations. In a few years' time, should the Government remain in office, they may adopt the same attitude towards those associations as they have adopted towards local authorities.
If the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people who want rented accommodation can obtain it only from the private sector at market rents, why should there be a need for housing associations? Is that not one of the reasons why the Government are insisting that market rents should apply to housing association properties? If the Government wanted to ensure that associations should continue to provide accommodation at reasonable cost, they would not insist on the observance of market rents.
It is necessary to curb the Secretary of State's powers. He has just returned to the Front Bench. I hope that he has had some sleep, although it would not have been the sleep of the innocent. Perhaps the Secretary of State heard me remark that on Second Reading he paid no particular attention to housing associations and did not go out of his way to praise them. We are dealing with a Secretary of State who is as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and we are concerned that he will use his powers irresponsibly. It may be that if the Minister was the Secretary of State, we would feel a little more confident, because there is a distinction to be made between the two—[Interruption.] It appears that a number of my hon. Friends, and one in particular, disagree.

Mr. McCartney: I held that view through long periods of the Committee stage and continually gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt in an attempt to obtain concessions that were never forthcoming. However, when it came to the crunch, on all the major issues the Minister always did the Secretary of State's bidding. For years he has been proceeding in such a way as to ensure that tenants' rights have been seriously and dramatically undermined. We must rid ourselves of the belief that we have a benefactor and friend of housing associations and tenants in the Minister. He simply speaks with a smile and grits his teeth. The Secretary of State may be more open, aggressive and arrogant, but the message is the same.

Mr. Winnick: I may have been too generous. I have a weakness in that respect that I must try to curb. I am always most generous to my own colleagues, and I must try to curb any extension of that to Conservative Members.
It could be that the Minister started off reasonably well when he first went to the Department of the Environment, in so far as any Tory can start off reasonably well, hut, having worked in close association with the Secretary of State, he reminds one of Lenin's description of Bernard Shaw as a good man fallen among Fabians. The Secretary of State has exerted undue influence on the Minister. I must confess that the Minister has never struck me as someone who would resign over a policy disagreement. He is ambitious. I understand that they both went to the same school, and there may be some old school ties between them.
We should vote on the amendment before us. It is right that we should demonstrate, as we have been doing for the past three hours, our anxiety about the future of housing associations and the dedication of those involved in them—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). They should know of our concern and the indifference of Conservative Members, who have taken no part in the debate and have not supported the housing associations.

Mr. Corbyn: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the National Federation of Housing Association's publication—"Housing associations 1987–88—the breakthrough"? In it he will find a large number of photographs of Conservative Members of Parliament and, indeed, the Minister, who is now sleeping opposite us, showing their great interest in cutting tapes and opening housing association developments. Is he aware that under the Bill many of those developments will end up as privately owned flats let at high rents, not for the benefit of those for whom they were built in the first place?

Mr. Winnick: That is a useful intervention, as always, from my hon. Friend. Conservative Members give the impression in their constituencies that they could not be more keen or enthusiastic about housing associations, but when they are criticised because the Government do not allow local authorities to carry out their basic function, or what should be their basic function, of providing accommodation, something that has been agreed by successive Governments over the past 60 years, their reaction has always been, "We support housing associations. We will open this, do that, or anything you want." All they want is some useful publicity in their local press. But when it comes to the crunch, when it comes to defending housing associations and trying to ensure that their tenants are not forced to pay exorbitant rents, there is silence. There are two or three Conservative Members present and one is fast asleep in the corner, as far away from housing associations as Mars. In the main they show no interest.

Mr. George Howarth: What does my hon. Friend suppose that Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers will say to tenants when the schemes are opened? I understand that as a result of the introduction of private finance, £10,000 less per unit is likely to be spent on the construction of properties. Will they say, "This is an improvement," or will they say, "Goodness me, we did riot expect standards to be lowered"?

5 am

Mr. Winnick: Undoubtedly the latter. I have often found that Conservative Members, when approached about some harshness in Government policy—even housing benefit—say, "Oh, really? I did'nt realise that. I shall write to the Secretary of State." They then write to the Secretary of State, knowing full well what the reply will be, and they send the reply on to the person who has complained. We know how Conservative Members behave, especially those with marginal constituencies. Those with safe constituencies may not even bother to make representations in the first place.
One of the good things, as I think my hon. Friends will agree, is that Hansard can be sent around, so we can ensure that the manner in which the debate has been conducted is known. The silence—I would not even describe it as an eloquent silence—of Conservative Members will be the answer to the few naive people in housing associations who will not accept our explanation for the indifference of Conservative Members to the housing association movement.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I suggest that my hon. Friend is being somewhat unfair to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin)? He is not actually asleep; he is acquiring knowledge—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating amendments that the Opposition have tabled, not individual personalities in the House.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my friend aware that the long-term effects on housing associations will be catastrophic: very high rents, the encouragement of the right to buy and, ultimately, a change in the type of person who will live in their properties? Is he also aware that many housing associations have a specific, specialist function? People with disabilities, people from divided and broken homes and people who were formerly homeless or in institutional care will end up in the most appalling circumstances—and probably homeless.

Mr. Winnick: I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel aggrieved if I refer to him as my hon. Friend, as he has said "my friend". It simply shows that I am old-fashioned in such courtesies. I know that my hon. Friend means very well, and he may be right at the end of the day.
My hon. Friend has made the most valid point that could be made. Housing associations have indeed gone out of their way—simply because they see it as part of their function—to help people who, especially nowadays, cannot be rehoused by local authorities. Those people with all kinds of difficulties who have come out of institutions can at least be provided with adequate rented accommodation by the associations. But now that the associations will be forced to charge market rents, the position of the people described by my hon. Friend will be made even worse.
Does not the Secretary of State—even a Secretary of State with such rigid, Thatcherite, Right-wing views as the present one—recognise that the people who have been helped by housing associations will be helped much less as a result of the financial pressure imposed on the associations: the clawback of the rent surplus and the fact that they will be forced to charge market rents, with housing benefit being drastically reduced all the time?
I make a distinction. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was slightly wrong. I believe that the Minister recognises some of the points that have been made, not just because I have made them, but perhaps because others have made them more eloquently. However, the Secretary of State is simply indifferent to those points. It is all the more tragic that the senior Minister in charge of housing has views that reflect the 19th century, or before, rather than the last few years of the 20th century.
Frankly, the Secretary of State is totally and callously indifferent to the plight of those people described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. If the Secretary of State were to rise, he would tell us that the explanation is simple—people should pay a market rent and the market place is the only solution. He would claim that people buy bread and food and everything else in the market place so they should buy their houses there, too.
We believe that some people cannot afford market rents. If they could, they would buy. Would people choose to pay market rents in London and the south-east if they could get a mortgage? Common sense dictates that if they could, they would obtain a mortgage and as a result of tax relief, have secure accommodation—their own homes. People who are not in that position need rents set at reasonable levels.
I believe that many people, such as those who have been institutionalised, need help in this regard. Their only chance to leave an institution may be if they can be considered safe and secure and can obtain rented accommodation. If market rents prevail, those people will have little chance of leaving an institution. All Conservative Members, including the Secretary of State and the Minister, who do not support the amendment in the Division Lobby will have on their consciences the fact those people will continue to suffer.
I know that many of my hon. Friends want to participate in the debate, so I will bring my remarks to a close. If there are to be surpluses—and we have argued that in many cases surpluses would not be justified if housing associations charged market or exorbitant rents—instead of being clawed back by the Secretary of State, those surpluses should be retained by the associations to cover deficits, to carry out repairs and other essential work, to cover service costs and to ensure that associations have a balance in their accounts.
If there are to be surpluses, they should be retained by the responsible housing associations. No one has said that they are not responsible. It would be better if that money were retained for major repair work and service costs than that it should be clawed back by the Secretary of State with no guarantee that the money will be used for housing purposes. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment is perfectly justified and should be supported.

Mr. Tony Banks: I want to make only a few points. I listened carefully to the Minister, and in effect he said that we were making a fuss over nothing with regard to the amendment.
I will not repeat ad nauseam what my colleagues have said about the Minister's function, role and attitude to housing associations and rent levels in general. We are not in the business of taking the views, opinions and attitudes of the Minister and then claiming that they are different from the harsher opinions and standards of the Secretary of State. We are in the business of looking critically at


proposed legislation and deciding whether there are sufficient assurances for us to go along with it. In respect of this part of the Bill, we are not convinced by what the Minister has said either in Committee or on Report.
It is clear that the Government have changed the whole role of local authorities in the provision of rented accommodation. They have made no secret of the fact that they want to get local authorities out of the provision of rented accommodation. They are not keen on having any publicly provided rented accommodation. The Government have so changed the role of local authorities in the provision of rented accommodation that it now appears most likely that they also want to change the role of housing associations in the provision of rented accommodation. In other parts, the Bill changes the role of housing associations.
That is not just us being alarmist. It reflects the views and opinions expressed by housing associations. The Minister can tell me if I am completely wrong, but generally housing associations have deplored these provisions as they affect them. If any housing associations have told the Minister how much they welcome the provisions, I shall gladly give way to him so that he can read out their names. We do not know of any. Clearly, the Minister knows that housing associations are deeply suspicious of the proposals. It comes ill from the Minister to suggest that we are making a fuss about nothing when we say that we are equally suspicious of the Government's intentions in respect of housing associations. They have changed the nature of local authority provision of rented accommodation and it is now only one stage further to change the role of housing associations.
Just as the Government have forced local authorities to push up rates and go for surpluses on their housing revenue accounts, so, if the Bill is passed, they will be able to do precisely the same with housing associations. In the past, local authorities have been told that they must dispose of their housing stock through compulsory sales under the right to buy. Again, with greater powers going to the Government in respect of housing associations, it is only one step from directing them to dispose of their properties. Not only does one see dangers in this part of the Bill for rents, but it is a sign of the Government's likely future response and attitude to housing associations generally.
We can see the time coming when the Government will direct housing associations to continue to increase their rents in order to create surpluses which the Government can claw back to use for other areas of expenditure, perhaps not even necessarily connected with the work of housing associations, or for more schemes for housing, or even for other forms of housing provision within the housing association sector.
The Government are making the poorest people pay for their housing and repairs and then pay for other people's housing and repairs, while owner-occupiers receive more and more subsidies from the Government through taxation relief.
We do not believe that the amendment is a fuss over nothing. The Government's record makes us highly suspicious about their future intentions for housing associations. For those reasons alone—they are enough—we shall continue to push for the amendment.

Mr. Barron: I should like to follow on from where my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) left off and discuss the deep suspicions that have been aroused by clause 50 and its consequences for housing associations. When the Minister spoke earlier, I had hoped that he would put minds at rest, but he did not allay those suspicions.
One sure way of removing any suspicions is by supporting amendment No. 85. Although that amendment will retain the Secretary of State's power to make housing associations have a grant redemption fund, it will prevent the Secretary of State from taking money from those associations and using it elsewhere. The Housing Associations Act 1985 set up those redemption funds and I am sure that everyone would agree that only a small amount of money has been raised by their operation. The sum raised is not large enough for the Government to believe that it is not being put to good use. That money has given some security to housing associations, but the total raised by them has not been great.
What would happen if the Secretary of State implemented clause 50 unamended? The Minister said that the money would go to the Housing Corporation and not to the Secretary of State. The trouble is that the Secretary of State's record is not good in relation to money received by organisations that are directly funded by his Department. Is it possible to imagine that the Secretary of State will ignore the bonus that will result from the collection of surplus rent—overcharged rent—and that he will continue to make the same level of provision because of his concern about housing need and the importance of housing associations? The extra money will go to the Housing Corporation. Will the Secretary of State ignore such money when it comes to funding the corporation next year? That takes a lot of believing.
One must consider the right hon. Gentleman's record on local government and that of previous Secretaries of State. In those circumstances,, we have every right to be suspicious and to press amendment No. 85. If the Minister does not accept that amendment, we have every right to take it to a vote. In that way we shall have attempted to allay the fears of the housing associations and to keep the Secretary of State's hands off the money. The housing associations should have that money to use in those areas that will be beneficial to housing rather than for the Exchequer to use the money indirectly in areas where it will benefit the high income earners of our society.
We must remember that this is not the only change facing housing associations. The other major change will be the lifting of controls on rents. When the Bill is passed., things will be different. Earlier, we tried and failed to get some form of proper rent ceilings for housing associations, recognising the different problems of incomes among the regions. The Minister did not appear to agree with our desire to give some security to people living in housing association properties—and to homeless people who would like to live in them but whose homes are not yet even on the architect's drawing board, so to speak.
I want the Minister to reconsider his position and say that the Government will not use the housing associations as milch cows, from which the present rent controls can be removed. The Government should not force up rents to the market rents that they keep mentioning. Goodness knows what things would be like in housing if they did


that. Many Consevative Members feel that that should happen quickly; members of the Government have made statements that are close to it. It would be a charter for Rachmanism, and I would be completely against it. We should at least assure the associations that they will not be used as milch cows—[Interruption.]
Even if rents were forced up in some areas—[Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) if he wants to intervene. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate with his committee of hon. Friends, perhaps he should take them out to the Lobby, so that those of us who are concerned about the amendment's effect on housing associations can carry on a proper debate here. If Conservative Members want to intervene, they are welcome to do so; if not, they should leave the debate here to hon. Members who are concerned about housing associations, not about tips for Ascot tomorrow—if tomorrow ever comes.
The housing associations have projects on which to spend the money that is likely to accrue in the grant redemption fund. The Minister knows that the Government consultation paper "Finance for Housing Associations" gave many examples of uses to which the associations might put increased income from higher rents. I am not saying that I am in favour of higher rents—that would be misleading, as I am not—but the paper gave some examples.
Retained surpluses would be needed to fund the proposed progressive phasing out of grant for major repairs and for service deficits. If clause 50 is operated in future and the Government claw back the higher rents into the Housing Corporation—and perhaps then into the Exchequer—how will they fund major repairs or service deficits? They are likely to be funded by the tenants. They will be the only available source. The only other person who could fund the housing associations would be the Secretary of State, who would take the money away.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government want to see surpluses being built up not just because rents will be forced up but because that will ensure that proper investment is not made? Underfunding, not just of the housing associations but of any form of housing body that is not in the private sector, is part and parcel of the Government's strategy. A devastating effect of this is the backlog highlighted by the Audit Commission. The Government have done nothing to tackle the problem and, as my hon. Friend says, for tens of thousands of tenants the surplus that will result from clause 50 will be because of under-investment in their homes and of high rents, both of which the Government have supported.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. In the past six months I have had a classic example of the underfunding of housing associations. An association approached me indirectly through a member of the community in Maltby, which I represent and in which I live, in south Yorkshire. A dramatic change was being brought about in the ownership of houses that had been owned by British Coal. Some of them are still owned by British Coal, but the houses are being sold off to new landlords.
The South Yorkshire housing association, a small association which was formed just a few years ago, was

very worried about the matter. We shall later mention the problems with new landlords. That association approached me to see if there was any way at all in which I could get British Coal to reduce the cost of the houses that it wanted to offload on the private market. The price was 50 or 60 per cent. in excess of what could be afforded for homes that would have to be repaired and managed in a reasonable scheme that would have enabled the association to charge a reasonable and affordable rent.
I am glad to say that eventually a deal was struck. I do not know the exact details of the deal, but as a result of it people moved into some houses in Maltby. Others are still on the market. There is still uncertainty about whether the South Yorkshire housing association or another association of the same size will be able to buy the properties. As the Minister knows, if they do not go to a reputable landlord, they will go to auction in the City of London and that will create months or even years of chaos. Housing associations that have bought houses in that way have been able to give some security and are responsible landlords. Without money, the associations would find it difficult to make a bid to a public body that was unloading houses, especially houses that needed repair.
This clause, if unamended, could take the extra funding away. In his consultation paper the Minister accepts that it is not a bad idea for housing associations to have some money. One of the reasons for his belief that they should have some money is that that will enable them to attract money from the private sector and get mixed funding. The consultation paper said that it might not be a bad idea for housing associations to have some money. The Minister is proposing to take money, presumably annually, and give it to the Housing Corporation. How are we to get mixed funding if housing associations will not have money put aside from present need in order to attract private capital into their areas?

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes the telling point that the Government's claims about seeking mixed funding are bogus. Is it not the case that what the Government seek to do is to fatten up the housing associations so that they can be sold off to private landlords rather than encourage some mixed funding that might benefit the tenants and provide real investment? Their real motives are to ensure that the private sector takes over that housing, with the ultimate aim that housing is run not for public need but for private greed.

Mr. Barron: I do not wish to digress too far from what is before us, but I agree with what my hon. Friend said. I mentioned the selling off of the ex-public housing stock of British Coal on to the open markets through auctions, and so on, which the Government have been doing for many years. The only other common thread in the Housing Bill, other than that, is the one to try to deregulate rents in some form, so that the market will be ripe for the spivs and the city slickers to make quick killings. Of course, we have yet to debate the implications of short-term tenancies and the implications of people wanting to buy ex-public housing stock.

Mr. George Howarth: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that the Government's intention is to sell off housing stock to private landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for


Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has made a good point and I hope that he does not repeat it when the Secretary of State resumes his seat, because he might just put the idea into his head.

Mr. Barron: I must say that it will be one of many ideas that go through the Secretary of State's head on a regular basis. Presumably, many thoughts have gone through the Secretary of State's head since Second Reading. I do not have to tell my hon. Friend who sat on the Committee that this creature has grown and grown. Presumably, thoughts may still be coming in, but whether they will end up in front of us while we are considering the Report stage, Third Reading or in another place, we shall have to wait and see. There may be backwoodsmen in the other place who also have thoughts about the Housing Bill.
As I said earlier, I do not want to go into great detail on amendment No. 85, but in closing I echo the request to the Minister for Housing and Planning—who is still sitting with his eyes open most of the time—to give a good reason for not accepting our amendment, which would remove the threat that hangs over the housing associations as a result of subsections (6), (7) and (8). As was mentioned in the consultation document, that would give the Housing Corporation the power to give the housing associations the freedom to stand on their own. I am sure that the Minister will want to clarify the position before we move on to other matters.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I suppose that there is some merit in our being in the Chamber at 5.30 in the morning discussing housing matters which are important to the people we represent and crucial to the social fabric of the country. It is appropriate that the Minister and the Secretary of State should be here—of course, he has left us—in order to participate in the debate.
It is sad that we are here this morning, because I would have thought that the merits of good housing would commend themselves to the House and the country. It raises the fundamental question why, if we are all interested in good housing for our people, there are so many amendments attempting to find the answer to that question. It is sad that we are debating the amendments on the premise that, through this legislation, the Government have created a great deal of controversy, concern and anxiety within housing associations and local government.
I wish that we were here this morning to commend a Bill that was in the interests of all our people and had the support of all in the House. Clearly, that is not the case, because the legislation represents the doctrinaire attitude of a Government who are not interested in promoting the best housing.
We are suffering from missed opportunities to provide in the Bill the means to respond to the problems in many constituencies. The Minister should have taken the opportunity to resolve some of the problems. He has not done so, because he is under a great deal of doctrinaire pressure to respond to what are allegedly housing issues, but which are in fact the interests of the markets and commodities. The Bill does not face the human need for housing in 1988.
We recently conducted a survey in my constituency to discover the accommodation needs of the elderly and the disabled. The Government say that that should be a function of the housing associations. Our analysis showed

2,500 elderly and disabled people waiting for 50 disabled persons' bungalows. Someone aged 70 would have to wait until he was 120 before being provided with such accommodation. The building programmes and the specialist housing provision simply do not meet the need.
There is a growing need for investment in the unpopular estates with their multi-storey housing and deck access. The Secretary of State should be sufficiently concerned to tackle some of the underlying social problems in the inner cities. The Prime Minister talked about tackling that problem, but where are the resources and commitment in the Bill to begin to approach that problem and the problems of escalating rents and rates? The Government are responsible for inflicting massive rent increases—[Interruption]. Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) would like to deny that.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What about the rates?

Mr. Turner: I can justify rate increases in terms of the reduction in rate support grant to my local authority arid every authority since 1979. There has been a massive reduction in support for rent and rates, and they have escalated as a consequence.
The missed opportunities in the Bill are there for all I o see. It is a vehicle for Rachrnanism and landlordism. It does nothing to satisfy the expectations, needs and desires of people for good housing. I liken the Government's obsession with markets and commodities to a new game of monopoly. The Bill deals with picking a landlord and picking a tenant. Instead of making purposeful progress towards good quality housing for all our people, the Bill reflects the short-term gift and profits that the Conservatives want to give to landlords.
I hope that the people of this country will realise that the Bill has nothing to do with good housing, making progress with tenants' associations, or delivering the housing that they want. I hope that, even now, the Government will reconsider their obligations in respect of good housing and make purposeful progress to meeting the legitimate needs of our people, rather than following a doctrinaire housing policy that will put money in the hands of landlords and achieve nothing for those people who are crying out for decent housing.

Mr. McCartney: Clause 50 is part of a family of clauses that we debated in Committee regarding, first, changing the nature of the relationship between local authorities and central Government and the funding arrangements with housing associations; secondly, changing the nature of funding between local authorities and housing associations; and thirdly, in a more general sense, changing the nature of the relationship between housing associations and local authorities. As a member of a local authority and as someone who has been deeply involved with local authority housing and housing associations, I have noticed the changing nature of the relationship between local government and housing associations over the past decade. I want to deal with those changes in detail and the effects of those changes and make it critical for local authorities, such as my own in Wigan, to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the same clause as I am. We are dealing with parts of clause 50 which deal with the surplus rental incomes of housing associations. It has nothing to do with local authorities.

Mr. McCartney: The new clause concerns local authorities and, if you will allow me to proceed, I shall show you the direct connection. You know me better than to suggest that I would take advantage of your good nature at this early hour of the morning. If you had been with us in Committee, you would have realised that I keep to the subject under discussion. I am attempting to show what has happened and what continues to happen in the metropolitan borough of Wigan and why the concern of the housing associations is mirrored by that of the local authority associations. It is important that clause 50 is amended and that the Minister takes on board the protestations of my hon. Friends who have already spoken.
5.45 am
Wigan is one of the larger metropolitan boroughs. In 1986, the Audit Commission's report into the housing needs of 400 local authorities in the United Kingdom placed Wigan in the top 10 housing authorities for providing accommodation in a wide area for both special needs and general housing categories. It congratulated Wigan on the way in which it operated its housing policies. It commented on the way in which the local authority and the housing associations worked together on the housing investment programme, and on the way in which the housing grant schemes worked so as best to utilise the resources of the local authority and those of the housing association.
Wigan was congratulated on dovetailing the priorities of the housing associations with those of the local authority to enable the housing needs of the community to be met cost-effectively, while considering the needs of the community as a whole not just by providing the general type of housing that one would expect from a local authority, but by working with housing associations to provide more specific types of accommodation for those with special needs, such as the physically and mentally handicapped; and for dealing, through HAG and the housing associations, with the special programmes that are necessary, for those who are physically abused and for the mentally handicapped, and on its programme of reintroducing into the community those who were formerly, or are still, in institutions because of their mental and physical disabilities.
Therefore, there is a direct correlation between this clause and the continuing relationship between the housing associations and the local authorities because the continuation of that funding link will provide the only real new investment in housing stock, both now and in the foreseeable future in many areas. The reality is that, since 1979, Wigan metropolitan borough council's housing investment programme has been cut from £18·7 million to £5·1 million—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening patiently in the hope that the hon. Gentleman would be able to confirm his earlier statement that he would demonstrate the links between the clause and the other matters to which he has been referring. He has not persuaded me at all. I do not see any link between the matters that he is talking about and the provisions of the clause, which deal with the surplus rental income of housing associations. The hon. Gentleman must either address himself to the amendment before the House, or resume his seat.

Mr. McCartney: I have listened to what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but again reiterate that there is a direct correlation between what the local authority previously provided through its housing investment programme and what is now having to be provided through the housing investment programmes of the housing associations, and how that programme is agreed jointly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, it still has nothing to do with the amendment that we are discussing. It matters little whether the link exists or not, if it does not bear upon the amendment that is before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the amendment.

Mr. McCartney: It does have some bearing in relation to what happens to the surpluses; to the way in which they are used; to what this proposal will do to the long-term investment interests of the housing associations; and to how that investment relates to the agreed programme of new investment, linking it with the local authorities' priorities in the community.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is making a point about a technical matter that we debated at some length in the early hours. The difficulty that arises in relation to subsections (6), (7) and (8), which the amendment proposes to remove from clause 50, is that the surplus accruing to the housing associations, which will be redistributed through the Housing Corporation by the Secretary of State, are the sole method of financing the development of the housing associations. Local authority expenditure is being cut, so there will be no new money available for housing associations, except through rent increases.
Inevitably, housing associations will be called upon to deal with the increased demand for money for new house building stock through rent increases. Is that not the consequence which my hon. Friend outlines in a highly technical way? Probably only the technically expert would understand my hon. Friend's comments, but I fully follow them. His points are clearly linked to subsections (6), (7) and (8), which we are trying to remove.

Mr. McCartney: I do not want anyone to infer that the Chair does not follow the technical arguments, but my hon. Friend's analysis is correct.

Mr. Bradley: Will my hon. Friend comment on the relationship with the programmes on community care, which the Government are encouraging? In my constituency, the health authority, as opposed to the local authority, is in negotiation with a housing association to close wards for elderly people, put those people into housing association units and try to get community care to link up. Rents will be charged when the units take over from the hospital wards. Papers to be before the DHSS this Thursday say that housing benefit will fully cover the rents of those elderly people who are to be transferred to the community. As my hon. Friend has made clear, a link with community care has been established. Will he comment on this? I should like the Minister to say that the DHSS will fully fund the new rent levels for elderly people who are transferred to the community.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That point is a long way from the amendment. I hope that the debate will be confined to the amendment.

Mr. McCartney: Having been here since the beginning of the debate, I do not want to fall foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and end up being named and having to leave before the debate is finished. As my hon. Friends have said—Mr. Deputy Speaker allowed them to continue—there is a link between the surplus and rents, and we are interested in how the money is invested.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job and is convincing me about the powers that the Secretary of State acquires in subsections (6), (7) and (8) over surpluses. It is obvious that the Bill is fundamentally flawed. Rather than give tenants additional rights, it withdraws them, as my hon. Friend would agree. It is obvious from his examples—I am sure that he has many more, which we should like to hear—that the need to have a surplus which can be handed to the Secretary of State will force up rents and leave a backlog of disrepair, which my hon. Friend may like to illuminate for us.

Mr. McCartney: I should like first to deal with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). The relationship between housing associations in my area and the funding of special needs projects in the community is critical. There are a number of examples. In my constituency, an elderly persons' home is under construction. It will be not just for those over 65 but for those who are in the mentally confused category. It is critical for the funding of that programme, and for the investment of the Grosvenor housing association, that the Government clarify their intentions under the clause.
The Grosvenor housing association has completed in my constituency in the last 15 months a section for the mentally disabled who are released from hospital by the North-West regional health authority. That is being done with the support of and funding arrangements made by Wigan metropolitan borough council. That project is almost unique in community care in the north-west.
The rent levels in that development are vital, and I hope the Minister will clarify the Government's thinking on that type of project, which is one of a series planned as a joint funding venture between the regional health authority, the local authority and the housing association. It is critical not only in terms of the projects in my area but in terms of the Government's policy of care in the community.
In my constituency we have built refuges for women who have been physically abused. The local authority, together with housing associations, has used inner-area programme resources to cater for the needs of women and children who have been physically abused at home. In Wigan, the Grosvenor housing association and the local authority are investing substantial sums on a programme of new build spread over the coming three years to cater for physically abused women.
The levels of rents and what happens to any surpluses are vital issues in considering the future management and financing of such refuges. Because of the changes in housing benefit, the funding arrangements of some refuges are having to be reconsidered. It is vital for the Minister to clarify what will happen in the sort of special needs circumstances I have outlined.
There are a number of other housing associations in my constituency. In conjunction with the local authority, they operate on a zoned basis. The County Palatine housing association, for example, is building homes for the elderly. The same association is involved in another part of the area rehabilitating properties that were unable to he used by the private sector. They are now being brought back into the public sector for renting. The housing benefit is a critical factor in this investment programme.
A housing association called Church Army specialises in providing housing for the elderly. Let us not forget that since 1979 not one new property has been built in my area specifically for the elderly and elderly disabled. But for investment programmes agreed between local authorities and housing associations, there would be huge gaps in our housing provision. There is a clear link—in practical, day-to-day terms—between the Department of the Environment, the local authorities and the housing associations.
My borough council is not unique in the sort of provision that I have described. Hon. Members in many parts of the country could relate similar stories. The relationship has changed dramatically as the role of the local authority as the major provider of housing has been taken over by housing associations. Indeed, but for the action of those associations, virtually no new build would be occurring for the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, the physically abused, the elderly disabled, the elderly confused and the young homeless. Almost all those aspects of housing policy are funded through the National Federation of Housing Associations. Therefore, it is critical that we understand the effects of the clause on the long-term investment strategy of housing associations.
6 am
Just as important is the relationship between housing benefit and the level of rents. Those most at risk from changes in housing benefit and in rents are the poorest and the most vulnerable. It would be ironic if local authorities, having reached financial arrangements with housing associations after assessing the needs of the community and planning their investment programme, and having a strategy agreed with the Housing Corporation or the Department of the Environment, found that the viability of the projects was undermined and that the people could not be helped.
We did not deal in detail with that aspect of the Bill in previous debates. I debated it in Committee with the Minister and with the Under-Secretary of State, who is not with us at this early hour. I hope that she will be with us during the debates after breakfast. The Minister smiles. I have an ongoing relationship with the Under-Secretary of State in the sense that at least she listens sometimes to the arguments which we put forward. She sticks to her brief and does not make false promises. If there is no promise in the brief, no promise is offered. The Minister of State does not always stick to his brief; occasionally he offers us sympathy and suggests that he may be able to assist us. Unfortunately, in most cases he has not been forthcoming with the assistance.
That was the case in the debate in Committee on the general aspect of investment under this clause. I do not want to run foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will not go into detail on the debate, apart from asking hon. Members to read columns 687 and 688 of Hansard of the


Committee proceedings. There the Minister and I debated the allocation of scarce resources in stress areas and how that had been exacerbated by the changes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going into matters with which he said that he would not deal. He should return to the amendment about the surplus rental income of housing associations.

Mr. McCartney: I said that I would not go into detail, but surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am allowed to allude to the debate which took place in Committee, if only to give hon. Members at least an inkling of the discussion which I had with the Minister. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hooray Henrys on the Conservative Benches who have been at Annabel's all night to make rude remarks from a sedentary position about a subject which crucially affects hundreds of thousands of people who are relying on something good coming from the Bill.
Some of us spent over 180 hours during three months in a genuine attempt to ensure that the Bill would benefit people who require houses. It ill behoves hon. Members who are prepared to debate the Bill to make rude remarks from a sedentary position. If they want to make valid contributions, I am prepared to give way to them at any time, singly or collectively. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was a member of the Committee, but he rarely availed himself of the opportunity to speak. He usually withdrew his amendments so that he would not have to explain his position. So it is important, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you allow me at least to paraphrase a little of Hansard's official record of the debate in Committee.
Since that debate on 4 February, the situation has advanced in terms of Wigan borough council. In Committee, I told the Minister that his Department, together with the local authority, the private sector and the housing association, was considering a major development plan for the Worsley Mesnes estate in my constituency. It was originally built in the 1960s and comprised mainly maisonettes, decked flats, and system-built properties of the type from which all of us suffer because of the nature of such developments.
The Department of the Environment, in discussion with the local authority, examined ways of refurbishing the estate and also of introducing private and other sources of capital, ensuring not only that houses could be refurbished but also that the derelict land available could be utilised for new homes and other environmental purposes. If a deal is to be struck between the local authority and the Department, it is necessary to secure housing association investment along with that from private developers. Despite the local authority's reservations, that has been achieved.
Since February, the authority has met housing associations and private sector developers and has made a submission to the Department of the Environment involving the Grosvenor housing association and Beazer Homes. That programme involves not only demolition and the construction of new units to meet special housing needs but the refurbishment of existing maisonettes and decked flats.
The management of those new units will be the responsiblity of the housing associations and not the local

authority. Its involvement will be limited to introducing potential tenants to the housing associations from its own waiting list. Critical to the investment will be rent levels and the rate of return to the housing association. I refer to a development costing not just tens of thousands but millions of pounds, in an area that desperately needs refurbishment of its housing stock and general environment.
I want the Minister to give me an assurance not only that that scheme will proceed along the lines of the submissions made to his Department but also that there will be guarantees about the funding of the housing associations and about rent levels. It is essential to the people on our waiting list and to others, including the young, that they should be able to afford the rents of those units. It is not the intention of Wigan local authority, and certainly not of the associations, to provide a refurbished estate only for those who can afford high rents or to purchase. We want it to provide housing for the indigenous community across a wide spectrum of tenancies. This clause is critical to all of that.
It is critical for this reason. I want to quote from a document from the National Federation of Housing Associations which highlights the particular problems involved in investing in such estates. It says:
Another important factor is that associations who take part in schemes funded partly by private borrowing and partly by public grant will be expected to bear major risks as the grant is likely to be determined at the beginning of a scheme and will not be increased to take account of unforeseen increased costs.
On the estate to which I have referred, unforeseen costs could occur in a number of areas, both in terms of the possibility of mining subsidence and construction problems. For example, the large-scale use of asbestos in the heating pipes serving the deck flats requires additional work even before the refurbishment work commences.
The document goes on to say:
To expect associations to bear this risk and to also take away their only prospect of building up some form of surplus is inequitable.
That is the view of the housing associations, the very people the Minister is saying he wants to encourage to diversify and become involved in areas of investment and in projects in which they would not usually be involved.
Therefore, I am again seeking an assurance from the Minister about that aspect of funding and the level of rent, what will happen to the surplus and how they will be reworked into the system. The Minister said in an earlier intervention that the surpluses would come back to meet housing needs. I hope that he will elucidate precisely what he meant by that and say precisely where the surpluses will be used. It is ironic that in areas of housing stress, where housing surpluses begin to accrue, they are then reinvested in other areas with lower housing stress or where the priorities are different. The only equitable answer is that, where surpluses arise, they should be reinvested in the community where the housing stress was first established and where the schemes to get rid of it were initiated.
Without that assurance, all the Minister is saying is that once again the Government are using housing stress as a basis to increase rent levels and to decrease the Exchequer's commitment to housing benefit. In the end, those most in need are those most likely to pay the most in terms of financial penalties. I hope that for once in his


life the Minister will give a real assurance that the worries expressed by the National Federation of Housing Associations and my hon. Friends will be met.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friends have debated the amendment in detail and I welcome that. They have made a number of serious and important points.
Clause 50 is entitled "Surplus rental income". It gives the Minister power to take away the so-called surplus rental income. That is a mandate for daylight robbery. It facilitates robbery mainly from the tenants. In the end, the money comes from the tenants through higher rents. As I said earlier, many of those tenants already pay a high rent in proportion to their earnings. It will be done via the housing associations. The clause gives the Secretary of State amazing powers. He will decide on the method of constituting the rent surplus fund, when it must be paid and any other matters connected with housing activities. He will decide the interest that can be paid, and when it should be paid. He is given immense powers.
The House should not give such widespread and unaccountable powers to the Secretary of State, allowing him to do what he wants to housing associations once the powers are enshrined in law. That is wrong, especially from a Government who were elected on the basis of speeches about their opposition to a centralised state interfering with private individuals, companies and associations. Here we have a centralised state gone rampant, with a Secretary of State able to intervene wholesale.
Housing associations should work privately, without undue dictatorial influence being exerted on them by the Secretary of State. As we have seen from examples in other spheres, such influence could be used by an unscrupulous Secretary of State to wipe out a small housing association that does not fit the bill, or because a private speculator with Conservative party interests has his eye on the association's property. Given the powers in the Bill, the Secretary of State could step in, charge huge rates of interest and say that the association must charge high rents. He could force the association out of the work that it was trying to do and ensure that its properties fell prey to the private speculator. Those powers are grounds for potential corruption, and we should oppose them.
This is an appalling clause. As I have said, it facilitates daylight robbery. I support the amendment, which is designed to stop such an abuse of power.

Mr. Battle: I thought that the Minister, after his brief intervention, might have responded to some of the points that have been raised. Before we pass legislation to take away surplus rental income from housing associations, it is important to ask—as many of my hon. Friends have asked—where that income would come from. It is inevitable that the issue should be included in the complex equation of housing associations' financial arrangements, because the Bill will mean tenants paying increased rents.
I tried to intervene to ask the Minister a question. We have not received answers to our questions all night. In particular, I asked the Minister to give us a guarantee that 100 per cent. housing association grant funding will still be available to small housing association schemes. I will give way to the Minister now if he will give us that assurance.

Mr. Waldegrave: I will intervene if the hon. Gentleman promises not to go on for another six hours.

Mr. Battle: I will not go on for another six hours on this amendment.

Mr. Waldegrave: I would not ask for more than that modicum of fairness.
There will be 100 per cent. funding for schemes—which may not always involve small schemes—which cannot obtain finance from the market to meet their objectives. Some of the smaller schemes may be able to borrow money and some of the larger schemes doing special things may not. I do not want to attach the funding specifically to small schemes, but there will be a continuation of 100 per cent. funding if that is the only way to meet the necessary objectives.

Mr. Battle: We are grateful for the Minister's contribution, because it will mean that some of the schemes outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) will have a chance of survival and will not be squeezed out or jeopardized.
The Opposition have mounted a spirited defence of housing associations tonight. Housing associations will still be pressing for the grant redemption fund to be abolished. As that cannot be achieved, because the proposal was turned down in Committee, our only option is to support the amendment that will delete the clauses that enable the Housing Corporation to make use of the GRF. In other words, we will neuter the import of clause 50.
I remind the Minister and his Back-Bench colleagues of a sentence in yesterday's debate:
It is important not to create an atmosphere in which small housing associations are unable to continue their work in that small area in which they want to work."—[Official Report, 13 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 82–3.]
We have argued all night that we would create an atmosphere if clause 50 were to be passed in its present form. I acknowledge that the words I have quoted come from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
If the Minister will not heed our calls on this point, I urge him to heed the calls from his own Back Benchers. This may be the last-ditch stand for some small housing associations and co-ops, and it will be clear from tonight's debate who in the Chamber are the real defenders of housing associations. Conservative Members claim to support the housing association movement, but they will be judged by the way in which they vote in the context of this Bill which will introduce legislation that will damage the housing associations.
I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments and to neuter clause 50 by preventing the clawback of the rental surplus.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 121.

Division No. 354]
[6.23 am


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McCartney, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun




NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Batiste, Spencer
Knowles, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Latham, Michael


Bowis, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lilley, Peter


Bright, Graham
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Budgen, Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Colvin, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maude, Hon Francis


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Couchman, James
Miller, Sir Hal


Cran, James
Mills, Iain


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Michael


Day, Stephen
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Devlin, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Dover, Den
Page, Richard


Durant, Tony
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Favell, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forth, Eric
Ryder, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, David (Dover)


Freeman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gale, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gill, Christopher
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gow, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stern, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Stevens, Lewis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Grist, Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Trippier, David


Harris, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hawkins, Christopher
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hayward, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hind, Kenneth
Walden, George


Hordern, Sir Peter
Waller, Gary


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Warren, Kenneth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Watts, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wells, Bowen


Hunter, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Irvine, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Jack, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Jessel, Toby
Wood, Timothy


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Yeo, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. David Maclean and


Knapman, Roger
 Mr. David Lightbown.


Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Nellist. Dave
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Allan McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Skinner, Dennis



Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a Speaker. Heat, rather than I debates. During the course been light, but not hon. Members have

complained about the low temperature in the Chamber and I wonder whether anything can be done about it—or perhaps we should huddle together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's comments about the temperature will have been heard.

Clause 52

MEANING OF "HOUSING ACTIVITIES" IN 1985 ACT

Amendment made: No. 248, in page 39, line 9, leave out clause 52.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 54

CONSTRUCTION OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 249, in page 40, line 15, leave out clause 54.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 56

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 308, in page 41, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 87, in page 41, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) If, as a result of consultation under this section, it appears to the Secretary of State that a majority of persons consulted under subsection (2) above are opposed to the designation of the proposed designated area, he shall not make an order under section 55 above designating the said area.'.

Mr. Spearing: This debate marks the entry of the House into part III of the Bill, which deals with housing action trusts. A more circumspect Government would have introduced a Bill for them alone. They are an innovation of such novelty that that would have been justified.
Clause 56 has to do with "consultation and publicity". Subsection (3), which my amendment would delete, is extraordinary. It states:
Consultation undertaken or steps taken before the passing of this Act shall constitute as effective compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2) above as if taken after that passing.
Subsection (1) states:
the Secretary of State shall consult every local housing authority any part of whose district is to be included in the proposed designated area.
Subsection (2) states:
Before making a designation order, the Secretary of State shall take such steps as appear to him best designed to secure that the proposal to designate the area in question is brought to the notice of persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected by the proposal.
Subsection (3), which I seek to delete, effectively talks about steps taken by the Secretary of State at any time before Royal Assent. I take that to mean that steps that he may have taken even before this debate—there is no retrospective time limit here—shall count as if they had been taken after Royal Assent in compliance with clause 56, which might become section 56 of the new Housing Act. To that extent it is retrospective. Here we have a novelty, in that the Bill has a retrospective aspect. However, I would call it a prospective consultation legitimised by a retrospective power. I am glad to welcome


the Secretary of State to answer the debate. No doubt he will tell us whether any consultations have already taken place that could be legitimised by subsection (3).

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is proposing to ask the Secretary of State some questions. Perhaps he should remind him of the view that he held on the retrospective aspect of the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975. It would retrospectively have given relief to 11 Clay Cross councillors, but was opposed on the basis that, in general, retrospective legislation is wrong. It was opposed on that basis by the then Conservative Opposition, which included, I suspect, the present Secretary of State. It would be well to raise the distinction between that stance in 1975 and the Bill, in which the right hon. Gentleman makes not only lavish use of retrospection, but extremely unusual use of it, as my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State is present in the Chamber and can answer that question. If there has been a lack of courtesy on my part on other occasions, the debate will show that I shall try to put legal matters in a de minimis fashion. The Secretary of State should tell us the justification for the combined prospective and retrospective quality of clause 56.
My hon. Friend properly reminds us of a matter of principle. The Opposition are quite rightly highly sensitive to any element of retroactivity. The Secretary of State is a parliamentarian and will agree with that. I am sure that in the past when he was in opposition he objected to any such proposal by the Government of the day. There must be a justification for such legislation. If there is not, the Opposition have a proper case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Clay Cross councillors. For various reasons I supported that case, and the Secretary of State, in his winding-up speech, or now if he wishes to do so, must tell us what has forced him into introducing retrospective legislation. Such legislation can be justified, and my hon. Friend gave examples of how Governments might be driven into it by sheer necessity. I can find no reason for this provision in the Bill—the Secretary of State can correct me if I am wrong—other than economy of time. Without this provision, the consultations required by the Act, as it will he, could start only after Royal Assent.
All Governments undertake certain preliminaries. For example, feelers are put out, names are looked at and the constitution of the proposed quango is considered. The House should realise that we are talking about a quango, despite the fact that in an earlier phase of its activities the Conservative party tended to hunt down and destroy quangos. I do not think that anyone is opposed to the procedure that I have outlined, but the Bill specifically legalises it. The Secretary of State might wish to tell us the criteria that he adopted in deciding on this course of action.
6.45 am
The only reason that I can see for this provision is that it will get things moving more quickly. The Secretary of State will be able to start the consultations before Royal Assent. The procedure will be legitimised, and in that respect it is a double retroactivity, which the House should deplore in principle. That covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene before any of my hon. Friends do so, I shall gladly give way.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): No, later.

Mr. Cryer: The point that I was making to my hon. Friend was that, as he rightly said, there are instances when retrospective legislation is justified. However, that was not the argument that was used in 1975 by the then Conservative Opposition, when they wheeled out the shadow Attorney-General to say that retrospective legislation was not justified on any occasion. They said that by passing retrospective legislation the House was on the edge of the slippery slope to Fascism. The wheel has turned full circle. They have abandoned the stance that they adopted on retrospective legislation in 1975 in order to persecute 11 councillors and are using it not only in the Bill, but lavishly elsewhere.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the remarks of the then shadow Attorney-General, to which he referred, reinforce our demand to be told the criteria that have been used in this instance. If the proper criteria for retrospective legislation do not exist, to introduce such legislation is to set out on the slippery slope to Fascism. We shall wail with interest to hear the Secretary of State's criteria. I was not a member of the Committee, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was hauled over the coals for using the word "Fascism", but here we have a possible justification for its use, based on the comments of a former Attorney-General. We shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's justification in principle for introducing retrospective legislation.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is this not just another example of double standards on the part of the Secretary of State, bearing in mind what happened in the 1970s? It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman's double standards, because he advises people to allow the green belt to be developed, provided that the development is not in his back yard.

Mr. Spearing: That is a separate topic, but I do not know whether the Secretary of State has considered retroactivity in legislation, although retroactivity in respect of the green belt is being canvassed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out yet another anomaly, and we look forward to the Secretary of State's justification for this in principle.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that the significant difference between the proposed action in 1975 and what is proposed here is that the action of the Labour Government was intended to give relief to citizens, whereas this action is intended to ensure that the Government can grab power prematurely?

Mr. Spearing: We can expect this Government's legislation to be the opposite of the purposes and objectives of the Labour party. In this case, it is retrospective application to public property. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that public property is not the property of any one political party. We may disagree about the extent of public property and the degree to which it is advisable to have such property, but I think we all take the view that public property as such is a trust to be handled or disposed of with due regard to the benefit of the nation as a whole, and especially those who may be affected by any disposals.
I want to make a little progress on the whole question of consultation. Earlier subsections refer to the area designated for a housing action trust. We cannot talk about an area without saying what will happen in it. The area of a housing action trust—if there is one—will be designated in a statutory instrument, and it will depend on what it is intended to do inside the area.
It is important to the scope of the debate to understand that consultation is not just about geographical areas, but is also about what happens inside them. The Government are taking legal powers in this clause and in clause 55 that will make a great difference, and there must be consultation about that. It is not just a matter of going to local people—the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—and saying, "We want to draw the boundary here."
The Government will have to consult about how the HAT will be formed, what it will do, and what plans and provisions it will execute. After all, a housing action trust sounds like a good idea. We are all in favour of housing, we are all in favour of action to obtain better housing and we are all in favour of trusteeship. Therefore, the HATs might, on first hearing, appeal to those in need of housing or living in conditions that need improvement. I think that we have something in common with the Secretary of State. We want improved housing, and this provision is his way to achieve that. He will consult not only about the boundary, but about what goes on inside it.
Amendment No. 87 goes further and takes in the proposed designated area, and says that the Secretary of State
shall not make an order under section 55 above.
Clause 55 sets out the scope of and the way in which a housing action trust will be established and the factors that the Secretary of State must take into account when he is determining its area. It would be impossible to ignore the purposes of the HAT.
We are talking about consultation and I have established that that is not only about the area but is also about the purpose and the activity. It is also about the manner in which it is to be conducted. I draw the attention of the House to what happened during the first meeting of the Committee when the Minister, who has been on duty all night and is now taking a well-earned rest, said—

Mr. Bradley: It is not a well-earned rest.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps it is not a well-earned rest, as the Minister is producing obnoxious legislation, although he personally may not be obnoxious.

Mr. Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is too nice.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend says that I am too nice. I find that politeness usually pays, except on rare occasions. If I lose my temper, I find that it does not pay, and I do all that I can not to lose my temper in this House.
In Committee, the Minister said:
For the first time, central Government are asking, as an experiment, whether there is a role for them, taking the responsibility through Parliament for the way in which the money is spent, while trying to help reverse some of the worst dereliction." [Official Report, Standing Committee G; 9 February 1988; c. 767.]

Of course we want to reverse the worst dereliction. The Minister used the word "asking", but, in the terms of the clause, it is not just a question of asking the House, but of consulting the people concerned.
I want to emphasise the phrase "as an experiment". The question whether the housing action trust is an experiment came up quite frequently in Committee.

Ms. Primarolo: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I see my hon. Friend nodding. I recall the Minister saying, "Let's try that and if it works, we'll extend it," but I do not see anything in the Bill about an experiment. The Minister may claim that it is an experiment and it may be presented as an experiment to the first people who will be consulted, but there is nothing in the Bill that states that it will be limited to six areas, the figure quoted in Committee. That is an idea for an amendment in another place. The Report stage of a Bill is all about scrutiny and asking questions. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—I was not on the Committee, but the Report stage enables us to consider what Ministers have said and what the law states.
My first question to the Secretary of State is therefore a retrospective one about the principle of the matter. My second question is simply whether it is an experiment. Whether it is an experiment determines the management of the consultation and the responses that people will give. People in a particular area may already have been approached, as may a council in a particular area or prospective members of a housing action trust. The list of the good and the great is perhaps being consulted to try to find appropriate persons to exercise those functions. Those people will want to know whether it is an experiment.
If one starts off with a range of proposals for areas A, B, C, D, E, F and G and they work, the Government will come back for more. There is nothing in the Bill that says that they cannot do that, although perhaps there should be, if it is an experiment. One cannot reverse the consultation when it has taken place. If the housing action trust transfers property from a borough council to private ownership—that is the purpose of this part of the Bill—and it does not work, is there a provision in the Bill for the position to be reversed? I understood that an experiment was measurable scientifically and, if it did not work, one could adjust the circumstances and start again from scratch. I do not believe, therefore, that this is an experiment.
My third question to the Minister is whether we can be assured that, when such consultation is carried out about housing action trusts, it will not be put across to prospective tenants or councils as an experiment. Will it be clear that it could be a permanent arrangement for that area? If that is so, the legislation would be irreversible. I hope that the Secretary of State can give us that assurance and tell us that what the Minister said in Committee about asking for an experiment is not correct.

Ms. Primarolo: On his point about experiments, does my hon. Friend agree, first, that it is dangerous to experiment with people's homes when, as he began to point out, the experiment is not based on any fair assessment or consultation, and secondly that, if the Government want experiments in relation to housing, they should run a control group, such as a local authority, which would be funded to the same extent as the housing action trust and which would cover the same type of


housing and they same number of housing units. Then, at the end of the HAT's life, which we understand will be about six years, the Government should compare how well the local authority has performed compared to the Government's experiment. That would go some way to meet my hon. Friend's point.

7 am

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because such things could well take place in Bristol or, indeed, anywhere else, and I shall come to that in my next point. It could be an experiment such as my hon. Friend has outlined. It could be a direct comparison of methods. The Government are saying that they wish to improve housing stock in areas where many repairs and much social reconstruction is needed and there should be more than one way of doing that. If the Government were really interested in experiments, they would do just what my hon. Friend has said.
I want to get on to my next point—

Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way before he gets to his next point?

Mr. Spearing: Yes.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I return to his point about the Secretary of State bringing in the great and the good to run some housing action trusts. As my hon. Friend knows, the great and the good do not come cheap. Such people have been appointed by Secretaries of State on other occasions—and, indeed, by this Secretary of State—and the bill has been expensive for the public purse. I cannot see any mention in the Bill of how that cost will be met or whether the House will have to consider a separate money order to pay for it. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that point?

Mr. Spearing: It is important that there is consultation with the prospective members of such organisations and, no doubt, the question of remuneration will arise. However, I have a feeling that the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment—

Mr. Ridley: indicated assent—

Mr. Spearing: I see that the Secretary of State is nodding. His amendment to, I believe, one of the schedules, deals with the conditions with which members of housing action trusts have to comply. It is an important provision, as it excludes any secondary income which might be gained from the fact that people are members of the housing trust. If I looked at the selection sheet I could tell my hon. Friend when the amendment arises, but I shall not do so at the moment. However, it is in another group of amendments and I hope that he will raise the matter at that point because it is an important point of principle.
The question that I now want to turn to in relation to consultation is, where is the consultation to take place? We are being asked to authorise retrospective consultation but we do not know where it will take place. I refer to column 768 of the Committee proceedings, when the Minister was asked where the experimental estates would operate. We were still talking about experiments at that stage. Hon. Members asked, "'Where?"', and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked, "When?". The Minister replied:

The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is in cheerful form this morning, but I must not refer to him, because that stops him from being sedentary. From a sedentary position he asks "When?" The answer is, before the Bill leaves Parliament. While it is before Parliament we shall bring forward our proposals. There will then be a prolonged opportunity to debate them in both Houses.
In Committee the Minister was constantly asked where these housing action trusts—the notional six or more—were to be, and he declined to tell the Committee. I have quoted a typical exchange.
The Secretary of State may already have in mind the location for the consultations. Unless my amendment is accepted, the House will give retrospective authenticity to the consultations, although we do not know the location. The Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South was:
The answer is, before the Bill leaves Parliament.
That is all right—there is just the Third Reading in the other place and then we discuss the amendments, if any, from the other place, which is some time in the future. Therefore, that point is covered. Not covered is the Minister's last sentence:
There will then be a prolonged opportunity to debate them in both Houses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 9 February 1988; c. 768.]
"Them" clearly refers to housing action trust areas which have been nominated by the Secretary of State. I do not know what "prolonged opportunity" there will be to discuss the proposed areas where consultation is taking place, unless the Secretary of State announces the location. Unless he does that, we will not know where consultation is taking place now or where we are retrospectively authorising it by law.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that one of the areas which we have heard will possibly be designated as a housing action trust affects his constituency and some estates in Canning Town. The Newham Recorder says that discussions appear to have been taking place between the local prospective Conservative candidate James Fairie, who
met Patrick Rock, private secretary to Government housing minister William Waldegrave, to start discussing a Housing Action Trust.
My hon. Friend should realise that consultation might be occurring in his constituency without him as the Member of Parliament being informed, not to mention the local council.

Mr. Spearing: I take my own practice and say that I do not always believe what I read in the newspapers That is the most charitable interpretation I can make of that report, which I recall reading. My recollection is that there was some publicity and that there had been a request from some people. I recall that later—my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West may confirm this—some people wrote to that newspaper to say that they had been taken to a meeting and it turned out to be not what they were told it was.
I hope to refer later to an area in my constituency which might be a prime candidate for a housing action trust, because there are eight tower blocks, all empty. I am being "invited"—the term often used in these instances—to legitimise consultation about which I, the borough council and some of the people affected know nothing.
I put this to the Secretary of State as one of the dangers: if we pass the legislation as drafted, he will be given the legal right to consult some people but not necessarily all


who are affected. The House is asked at the behest of the Secretary of State to legitimise consultation with persons unknown at the choice of the Secretary of State—we are not even told now who they are—and then is asked to make such partial consultation legal.
Does the Secretary of State consider that to be a proper use of power in a parliamentary democracy? It may be right for the House to give power for consultation after Royal Assent, and then the Secretary of State can choose whom to consult and the order of consultation, later to announce whom he has seen and what their responses have been. But as the Bill is drafted, we are giving the right hon. Gentleman a different power, a power which reflects somewhat the atmosphere mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. I suggest to the Secretary of State that it goes beyond the line of which he as a parliamentarian would approve.
What applies in my area might apply in any other constituency; there are housing problems in Bristol, in the north of England, in Yorkshire and in Sheffield. We hear about consultations relating to urban development corporations. There could be all sorts of consultations all over the place, and we are being asked to give them retrospective legitimacy.
I come to the effects that such a housing action trust might have, for those effects will vary greatly according to the type of area that is designated. In the London docklands area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and I know well, the differential between the existing value of an empty property and a similar occupied one is extremely wide; I am told that it is a ratio of three or four.
Thus, the disposal increment which a housing action trust could get by disposing of a void—if somebody dies, moves away from housing which they inherit, or buys or gets from the local authority—is great. If it then puts it on the open market, which the Bill suggests it should, the people coming in will be confined to a relatively narrow income group.
But in other parts of the country—I shall quote an example from Liverpool when we debate a later amendment—where such an effort has been tried, the differential between the existing value and empty value has been much less. So the impact of a housing action trust will vary greatly from one place to another. That is why, during the consultations, we must know the different effects in different areas, because they will vary greatly throughout the country.
We are aware of the overheating effect of south-east England. The Secretary of State will be well aware of that because of discussions that are taking place on various fronts. He must concede that the effects in Newham, Hackney, Southwark, Greenwich or anywhere east of the City will be vastly different from what will happen in, say, the outskirts of Liverpool or Newcastle. So the consultation exercise must be different—because the effects will be different—and the Minister must say how the consultation will be varied in accordance with those changes.
My next point on consultation deals with the purpose of the housing action trust. I will not go too deeply into this because it will arise when we debate later amendments to this part of the Bill.

7.15 am
When people are to be consulted about this, the purpose of the housing action trust will be very much to the fore and they will want to know exactly what will happen. Of course, the purpose of the trust is multiple. I emphasise one part of it which is covered by clause 58(3):
For the purpose of achieving its objects and exercising the powers conferred on it by subsection (2) above, a housing action trust may—

(a)acquire, hold, manage, reclaim and dispose of land and other property;
(b)carry out building and other operations;
(c)seek to ensure the provision of water, electricity, gas, sewerage and other services; and
(d)carry on any business or undertaking".

We will come to the merits of that later. If I were to deal with them now, I should properly be ruled out of order.
I am concerned about the degree to which the intentions of any one housing action trust will be part of the consultation. It is no good saying to a housing action trust, "We will repair this and give you a certain amount of security," if all the houses are to be sold when they become vacant, or if a factory is to be built, or if the housing action trust, which will be a planning authority, has in mind various plans for designating a change of use. I do not know how the Secretary of State intends to tackle this. Will he go along with a blank sheet and say, "This will be possible."? The Secretary of State will have powers of direction. Will he give the housing action trust a complete blueprint so that it knows exactly what he has in mind? Unless he does that, how can people respond?
All the good things which are to happen might be presented, but the other things might not be done if we had a less liberal, less civic-minded, less public-spirited Secretary of State. I will not concentrate on how far those admirable qualities are embodied in the Secretary of State. It is a matter of relativity, but suppose we had a Secretary of State who exercised his powers too liberally or in too Right-wing a way, what would the poor consultees say? They might say, "We were told that we would get this, this and this, but not that we would get that, that and that later because so-and-so is now Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State cannot prevent that. He is not legislating for the Government or for himself alone; he is legislating for posterity. These powers are enormous. He cannot give assurances about what will happen. He is asking us to say that the housing action trust can do anything it likes, so long as it is not stopped by him. Similarly, he can tell the housing action trust to do just what he wants. The more one thinks about this, the more one's mind boggles at the possibilities.
How far can consultation be of use? The powers are so wide that we must ask whether any form of consultation, even if the Minister provides the details that he has in mind, can be consultation in the best sense of the word.
Unless the Bill's scope is drastically altered, the consultation will be worthless, because nothing is known about what might happen afterwards. Later, I shall give the example of a similar organisation which was introduced with high ideals, and which was sold to the public as having marvellous objectives. Even the Chairman of the Select Committee was taken in. It turned out to be something very different, as I shall prove. If that can happen with an analogous body, it can happen with an action trust.
This matter goes to the heart of citizenship, the powers of the House and the quality of life in an environment of


which the Secretary of State himself is very conscious and wishes to enhance. It can be enhanced through the planning mechanism, which was achieved in the post-war period and is something of which we can be proud. All quarters of the House agree on that. We may differ about what is good or bad planning and about what ought to be done in the future and the degree to which there is public or private development, but all that falls within some kind of plan. The Bill introduces a major change into the country's planning mechanism, and consultation must take that into account. In any event, I do not imagine that there will be a housing trust in Croydon.
There could be a change of Government, and it occurs to me that this work is mutatis mutandis. A housing trust could be found in any constituency, for trusts need not be confined to urban areas. There could be dereliction and poverty elsewhere. The Secretary of State is from Gloucestershire and he knows that prosperity is not to be found everywhere.
Those trusts will have planning powers. I have not described those powers in detail, but it must be remembered that they will be transferred from the local authority. There may be only 5.000 inhabitants involved in a small area, but they should know that they will no longer be able to complain about planning matters to their local councillors, that no local committee will have any power in that respect, and that planning matters will in future be the responsibility of men and women appointed by the Secretary of State, who can ask him to do anything.
Will the Secretary of State, in the course of consultation, say that the Bill allows him to dictate land use changes from Whitehall? Unless I am mistaken in my reading of the Bill, that could happen. The Secretary of State is a busy man who cannot be expected to deal with everything. Will he, during the course of consultation, say that a change of land use of a small garden the size of the Floor of the House, a public allotment or park, or a private dwelling will rest in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that from his office in Whitehall he will determine such changes of use in Liverpool, Gainsborough, Newcastle or Gloucester? That is what the Bill says.
So massive is the change that I am not sure whether the Government or the Secretary of State have understood its implications. The change of use of a house or a plot the size of the Chamber could be substantial, or it could mean an advertisement sign or a change in the design of a building's fascia. I know that people get upset about the minutiae of planning applications. Those of us who have served on planning committees know that the erection of a third storey on a house and its design are important, because such a change affects the amenities of an area. Indeed, one of the purposes of the housing action trust is to make an area more amenable in that respect.
Will the Secretary of State tell people that such matters can be determined by an official in Whitehall? I can imagine what fun the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) would have had from the Opposition Benches if a Labour Government had introduced such legislation. In his inimitable way, he would have had a field day teasing my right hon. and hon. Friends about taking powers to determine such matters from Whitehall. But that is what the Secretary of State is doing, and he must tell us why.
The right hon. Gentleman must also tell us whether he will consult people locally. It is not only the people who

will be subject to this provision who will be concerned, but those who will lose the planning powers. Developments in any area that has an housing action trust will be taken away from the control of the local council. Coherent planning will not be in the hands of the local community, and what happens inside the housing action trust could upset the balance of the strategic plan of the local community. It could change housing values.
We have seen what has happened on a massive scale at Canary wharf. That is a similar situation, and it is affecting land prices throughout the south-east of England. The Secretary of State, or his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), could have stopped that enterprise zone, but he did not. That is an example of centralised power. What we are authorising here is the same as the enterprise zone set up by the London Docklands development corporation.
Will the Secretary of State. in consultation, tell the people inside and the planning authority what will happen? It could happen with another Secretary of State, even if he does not. Will he consult on such a matter, which is within the scope of clause 56?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has referred to the position of the Secretary of State for the Environment, but more than one Secretary of State is involved in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Wales may be regarded as a sort of time shift of the Secretary of State for the Environment in regard to this provision. He has said that the sort of difficulties to which he has referred could apply to any hon. Member's constituency, but will they apply to the constituencies of Welsh Members? There does not seem to be a Welsh Office interest in the debate. No Welsh Office Minister is present. Therefore, perhaps this provision will not apply in Wales, or perhaps the Government do not intend to use it in Wales, although theoretically it could do so. It would be useful to have some clarification. We would then know whether to share the clear worries that have been outlined by my hon. Friend in his recent remarks. Is the Secretary of State to whom he is referring one or a twin?

Mr. Spearing: I understood that the Government were a seamless robe, and that one Secretary of State equalled another. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Wales would feel very happy about being bracketed with the Secretary of State for the Environment, or, indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland—but I am told that the Bill does not apply to Scotland.
The Welsh Office in Cardiff has its own views on planning and the coherence of local communities, which might not be shared by the office in Whitehall. Where are the Government, and what is the criterion that the Government as a whole will take? My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should have some kind of regional response, because the Government say that they believe in some kind of regional government.

Mr. Michael: May I underline that by making a point which I am sure will be of great concern to you as well, Mr. Speaker? One of the documents referred to in the Bill has been published for England, but not for Wales. I have just checked the Vote Office, and, although last week it was promised within a few days, the document has still not been published. It is supposed to refer to a later part of the


Bill, so perhaps it will arrive in time for us to debate it, but I wonder about that, because we have been told by the Welsh Office that it will be radically different from the document produced for England. Perhaps my question about whether the housing action trust will be brought in in Wales is answered in the Welsh document. But if it has not been published, even at this late stage of our debate on the Bill, will its advice be available in time for any of our debates on transfers of housing from local authorities to new bodies?

Mr. Spearing: The Welsh document is on my list. My hon. Friend's opportune remarks underline what I said earlier about differential consultation. It is now clear that there will be a different approach to different parts of the country, and that there will therefore be consultation about different sorts of plan. The Secretary of State ought at least to tell us what is in his mind; otherwise, we cannot pass the legislation as it is.
That leads me to my last major point in this introductory debate—for we are not yet talking about the real meat of housing action trusts; we are only talking about the kind of consultation that might take place. That major point is that legislation is not completed. We will not and cannot know the scope and degree of option—which at present is as wide as one's HAT, or as wide as one likes—until Royal Assent. Anything can happen between now and that time.
The Secretary of State may think it unlikely that he would lose a vote in this place, but this is not the only place where legislation is made. I put this to him as a procedural question. How can he consult before Royal Assent, when only after Royal Assent can the full possible scope of housing action trusts be properly known? Is he not presuming on the privilege of both the House and the other place in relation to what powers will be available to HATs? How can he consult while the final shape and potential are still undecided by Parliament? I put it to him that such a presumption is itself questionable in a parliamentary democracy.
Of course there must be informal soundings, but these are not informal procedures. We are being asked to authorise in restrospect statutory consultative procedures. That is a very different matter, because it presumes that the legislation will end up as it is drafted.
Let me now raise a point about which the Secretary of State may know. If he does not, he should have been advised about it, because many Opposition Members—particularly London Members—are aware of it. I refer to hybridity. One has only to mention hybridity to Government Whips or in places like the legal department at the Department of the Environment and I am told—I have never been in such places—that people shift and shudder. They do that for a very good reason, because an element of hybridity brings in major procedural complications in this House. We should all know why hybridity is important. If an element of hybridity can be proved, it shows that the collective general power of a Bill is being used against people unfairly and it must be open to them to complain and petition this House to grant them protection against what lawyers call injurious affection.
Looking around the Chamber, I can see that many hon. Members here have been members of Committees on private Members' Bills where we have had to judge the

degree of injurious affection that individuals might suffer as a result of a privately promoted Bill or a publicly promoted Bill which has the effect of a private Member's Bill. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember the tricks about oil rigs that his hon. Friends got up to. I do not deny them the legitimacy of their actions in terms of procedure. Although you were not Mr. Speaker at the time, Sir, you will recall that it was a very difficult time for the Clerks Department and for Mr. Speaker in determining those matters. A great deal hung on the decisions.
It is right that the individual and liberty should be protected by the hybrid procedure. I am sure that the Secretary of State would be the first to agree that the liberty of the individual, which hon. Members on both sides of the House talk about very frequently nowadays, must be maintained. Therefore, any scintilla of hybridity in any legislation must have its respective reflection.
I can tell the Secretary of State and the House why I believe that this part of the Bill may well raise the issue of hybridity. This may come as a major surprise to some of my hon. Friends. I do not remember hearing hybridity mentioned in Committee. I can well understand that the housing action trust part of the Bill appears to be entirely free of any hybrid element. However, I have news for my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and conceivably for the Secretary of State and those who accompany him—who, although visible, are silent and unable to respond.
Perhaps I am wrong. If I am, I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me before I go very far to save the time of the House—we all want to save time. I would not want to advance a thesis which the Secretary of State may have investigated and reached a conclusion contrary to mine. Even if his conclusion happens to be contrary to mine, it would be quite wrong to let this important matter of public consultation go by. Even if the Secretary of State can give me an assurance, I will still develop the point because I think that I still might be right and he might be wrong, even if he has considered this. If he has not considered this point, he should tell us, because this part of the Bill mirrors almost exactly a certain section in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
That Act was not produced by the present Secretary of State for the Environment. He was a Minister then either at the Ministry of Transport, in the Treasury or at the Foreign Office. [Interruption.] Oh yes, he was at the Foreign Office. He was well out of it. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for the Environment at the time and he introduced that Bill with great relish and great complications for matters related to rates.
One part of that Bill related to things called urban development corporations. We had a single provision under which the Secretary of State could establish an urban development corporation in any area he wished and appoint members to it to do all sorts of things. It had powers on planning, the disposal of land, and getting Government money. One objective was to improve the environment to make it better for people to live in. In other words, the powers of regeneration were central to the concept of the corporations.
We now know that these are, in the City phrase, "up and running". There are two big ones, in London and on Merseyside, and others are coming along. There has been a bit of a slowdown recently, and a few days ago a


questionable procedure motion was tabled to pass six at one go. That was a thoroughly retrograde procedure which any Leader of the House should have stopped, but I shall not go into that because it concerns the House, not this amendment. Urban development corporations exist through a single statutory instrument. I remember the one relating to my borough. I was not allowed to speak. It lasted an hour and a half.
The London Docklands development corporation, half my constituency in area, was taken from the borough for planning and other purposes. The constituency Member could not speak because others had a greater right and I would not complain about their right. An urban development corporation statutory instrument was constricted to an hour and a half after 10 o'clock.
That was not the procedure in another place. The function of the order setting out urban development corporations had to be designated and passed as a statutory instrument on an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Unless I am mistaken, the same must happen for housing action trusts, and that is right.
But the statutory instrument does not pass through the other House on the same procedure. The good book "Erskine May", which is underrated, states on page 620 under "Hybrid instruments":
The House of Lords Private Business SO 216 provides that, where in the opinion of the Chairman of Committees, an affirmative instrument, as defined by Lords Public Business SO No. 68, is such that, apart from the provisions of the Act authorising it to be made, it would require to be enacted by a private or hybrid bill, he shall report his opinion to the House and to the Minister or other person responsible for it. An instrument upon which such a report has been made is known as a hybrid instrument2 and is subject to petitioning procedure.
I shall explain what that technicality means. Whereas, in this House, a statutory instrument is passed on an hour and a half's debate, if in the other place the Chairman of Committees determines that the same statutory instrument has elements of hybridity, it must go through the Statutory Instrument Committee procedure, which is directly analogous to the procedure for a private Bill in the other place.
When the order to set up the LDDC was passed by this House, it went to the other House where it was petitioned and the Chairman of Committees properly certified it as being a hybrid statutory instrument. As a result, 30 or 40 days were spent hearing petitions against it, as if it were a private Bill.
I do not know whether in another life, Mr. Speaker, you sat on a private Bill Committee or whether the Secretary of State ever sat on such a Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the thoroughness and length of the scrutiny and the number of hoops through which a Bill must pass. A statutory instrument and all the implications of that instrument, including potential development powers and all the rest of it, must go through a similar procedure, provided it is certified.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Those procedures should be welcomed instead of being talked out.

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's remark. I do not believe that there has been any element of tedious repetition in my remarks. In view of the importance of the matters to which I am referring I

think that I may have gone over them too quickly. I must not do that in respect of the procedures in the other place, because the Standing Orders of the other place are fairly explicit about what should happen.
I do not believe that I am debarred from quoting those Standing Orders here. Standing Order No. 69 of the other place says:
No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until:—

(a) except in the case of any Order in Council…
(b) in the case of a Hybrid Instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated."

Assuming that such an instrument is certified as hybrid, it is not possible for it to go through the other place without the private business Standing Order having been complied with.
I will not read all of Standing Order No. 216 of the other place in respect of private legislation. Some extracts will suffice. Standing Order No. 216 is entitled "Hybrid Instuments" and states:
A Petition to the House not to affirm a Hybrid Instrument shall be signed by the Petitioner or his Agent and be deposited or sent so as to be received in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments within the 14 days following the day on which the Chairman's Report under paragraph (1) above is laid before the House.
It goes on to describe the procedure in another place.
Why do I believe that an order to set up a housing action trust might well be certified by the Chairman of Committees in the other place as a hybrid instrument? It is based upon the analogy of urban development corporations. We need look no further than the speeches of the Secretary of State, the Minister and others to see that affinity. I gather that in public announcements and in Committee—my hon. Friends who were on the Committee will correct me if I am wrong—the constitutional relationship between a UDC and a housing action trust was consistently made. I have said enough in the debate to demonstrate how similar they are.
The Secretary of State may wish to intervene to say that I have gone up a blind alley, but I do not believe that I have. The chances of an affirmative instrument to set up a housing action trust being certified hybrid by the Chairman of Committees in the other place and being subject to what is, in effect, a private Bill procedure, are extremely high—it is a more than distinct possibility.
In conclusion—the House will be relieved to hear that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Well, I have worked through a series of logical points. Any Secretary of State worth his salt will be aware of the arguments. I am sure that he is aware of all this. If he has not been told, I am certain that somebody's head will roll.
My point about consultation is that, when such an instrument appears, as it did in the case of the London Docklands development corporation order, it is then up to the Committee of the other place to get some undertakings from the promoters—the Government. It can give its approval to go ahead, but make that approval subject to many restrictions to protect the individual, corporation, borough council, firm or outside area that might 'be injuriously affected. And they can be affected, as I have shown. The other place might give the go-ahead for a housing action trust, as long as certain undertakings were observed.
The Government representative at such a hearing is like the promoter of a private Member's Bill. So the other place


will let through an affirmative instrument only provided that certain conditions for a housing action trust in a particular area are met.
If this is a strong possibility—I have every reason to believe that it is—how can the Secretary of State consult, when the constraints of the other place are as yet unknown? How can he go to a prospective location for a housing action trust and consult the people there, or the borough council, the housing associations or landlords, without knowing what constraints will be placed on his freedom of action?
I do not deny that the Bill, bad though it is, gives the Secretary of State enormous scope, but the other place may. The right hon. Gentleman knows more about the activities of the other place than I do: he is well connected. The other place is jealous of the rights of the individual. Perhaps the Secretary of State does not know how the procedure is arrived at. Why is the other place more jealous of individual rights and equipped with better procedure to deal with them than we are?
Some years ago, when a Government of my political complexion were in power, they were afraid that a general power would be used by a nationalised industry to plant pylons, dig up the land or build roads—activities that would be injurious to the rights of landowners. They decided that if there was an element of hybridity in the statutory instrument, they would protect landowners, the countryside and people who might be injuriously affected, and they introduced this procedure. If that can be done—quite properly—to protect the rights of landowners, it can and should be done for my homeless constituents.
Consultation cannot take place, because the Secretary of State cannot yet be aware of the degree to which a housing action trust may operate within the law that this Act would create.

Mr. Bradley: We have sat through 13½ hours of fascinating debate on this important Bill, examining its precise details. As a new Member, I may say that this is the first Report stage in which I have been involved, and I have been surprised that Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee have failed to turn up and make contributions to the debate. It would appear that they are unable to justify the Bill's provisions. However, we are pleased that the Secretary of State is here to look at this important part of the Bill.
Over the past 13½ hours we have looked at the Government's proposals to deregulate the private rented sector, removing security of tenure and succession and pushing up rents to a market level without making a commitment on housing benefit to pay for those rents. In part II of the Bill we looked at the ultimate collapse of the traditional voluntary housing movement and the move towards a free market. I know from experience in Manchester that many of the people who voluntarily serve on small housing associations are looking carefully at their position. They went into the housing movement not to raise money on the finance market or to be responsible for high finance or high rents, but to try to provide for the housing needs of local people.
The Government say that the philosophy of the Bill is tenants' choice. They believe that they are freeing and enabling tenants to choose the type of housing that they want. We have reached this part of the Bill at five minutes

to eight in the morning and we see exposed the myth of tenants' choice. The chickens come home to roost when we start to talk about housing action trusts. They certainly have nothing to do with tenants having a choice about future housing in the designated areas.
Amendment No. 87 would provide:
If, as a result of consultation under this section, it appears to the Secretary of State that a majority of persons consulted under subsection (2) above are opposed to the designation of the proposed designated area, he shall not make an order under section 55 above designating the said area.'.
The amendment is an attempt to help the Government to fulfil their philosophy by giving tenants a choice, a right and a say in their areas.
It is worth looking at the Government's reason for bringing forward the experiment in housing action trusts. They would not need to carry out such an experiment if they had properly funded local authorities so that they could provide decent housing for people throughout the years that the Government have been in power.
I should like to mention the success of experiments in which I have been involved and in which consultation did or did not take place. I shall outline our experience of community development projects and research work that we carried out in Manchester, using Department of the Environment tips about how to consult tenants on the development of their area. First, I shall deal with my contention that the only reason why we are talking about having to consult people about the awful conditions in which they live is the absolute lack of investment, public expenditure and commitment to housing. It is because of those things that the Government say they now have to consider an alternative approach.
Figures in an authoritative document, published by the well respected Association of Metropolitan Authorities, support the view that we would not need to discuss housing action trusts in consultation with tenants if there had been proper investment.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with the figures in section 8. I will read the commentary to start with, which is
Section 8 Capital Investment in Housing
The section says:
The trend shown in this section from 1978/79 has been of a general decline in real terms in the resources available for housing investment.
Gross capital expenditure by local authorities on housing in England fell in real terms by 36 per cent. between 1978/79"—
when this Government were first elected—
and 1985/86.
Those were the last available figures.
8 am
It continues:
It is clear that the bulk of expenditure has been switched to the renovation of local authority stock and renovation grants for private sector dwellings, at the expense of new housebuilding.
If cities such as Manchester had had the opportunity of tackling the problems of homelessness and long waiting lists by having the chance to build decent new housing, we would not be discussing housing action trusts and the need to consult those tenants whom we wish to help to have decent housing.
The amendment clearly shows that we are consulting people about the poor condition of their houses caused by the lack of investment. The figures set out in the document show that for the housing investment programme


allocations for the periods 1978–79 to 1986–87, the outturn prices at 1986–87 levels declined from £4,849 million in 1978–79 to £4,248 million in 1979–80. They fell from £3,097 million in 1980–81 to £2,286 million in 1981–82.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide. I remind him and the House that we are dealing with consultation and publicity. We are dealing with the procedures involved. The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to widen the debate, but I am sure that he will come back to the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but l think it is essential for hon. Members who were not on the Committee to appreciate fully why we tabled this amendment in consultation with the very people who have lacked the investment that I have talked about. To comply with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be brief.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) was not present at the Report stage last Thursday and he is not here today. I hope that there are no family problems or illness. There must be a good explanation for his absence. The hon. Gentleman actually came with a graph to explain the housing process in this country. I would have shown him a similar graph, but I feel that this one makes sense, while his clearly did not. As was said earlier, the white coats were out for that hon. Member after the graph was shown. I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the graph, which shows a massive decline in resources that the Government wish to reinject through the housing action trusts and a desire to consult tenants about the decline in expenditure.
Table 8.5 shows the international comparison of investment in residential construction as a percentage of gross domestic product. The table shows the countries involved in this kind of investment. At the top of the table is West Germany, with 6·1 per cent., and right at the bottom is the United Kingdom, with a paltry 2·1 per cent. of gross national product spent on housing investment.
I now come to my second point, which is that consultation with tenants has been tried in the past and we have experience that we can bring to bear through the amendment to help the Government tackle the problem of the housing action trusts in part III of the Bill.
My first experience was when I was a researcher at university and worked on a community development project. I was the researcher for the project in Oldham, Greater Manchester, where we carried out a study on a large investment programme for upgrading what in those days was called a slum estate. It was probably similar to the kind of areas that we will be looking at when we finally come to designate the housing action trusts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) clearly, concisely and eloquently explained the problems involved in this part of the Bill. As he said, the Committee would have been in a better position to discuss the implications of the scheme and the real consultations with tenants if it had known where the areas would be. On Second Reading and in Committee we were given assurances about the announcement of the areas. We understood the Minister to say that they would be known by Report stage. I shall happily give way to the Secretary of State if he will announce the six areas on which he will be consulting tenants. Unfortunately, he does not seem to

want to give us that information, which makes this debate rather theoretical. We are in somewhat of a vacuum in trying to discuss the realities of the scheme.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps one reason why the Secretary of State cannot announce the areas is that that would trip the hybridity procedure in the other place. Having conceived the idea, perhaps—as with the city technology colleges—it may be hard to execute it.

Mr. Bradley: That is certainly a possible reason for the Secretary of State's deafening silence. Later, I shall refer to other difficulties that he may be experiencing in announcing the areas.
Our first experience in Oldham was designating an area and then imposing the way in which those properties should be renovated and upgraded, with the assumption that that would lead to better housing. Our research on the Abbeyhills estate clearly showed that the tenants had to be committed to the project and to the idea of better housing—and, for HATs, not only to housing but to every possible aspect of life in those areas. It is interesting to note the powers that the Secretary of State will take unto himself in the designated areas, as opposed to the surrounding areas that will be democratically controlled by local authorities.
We said in Committee—and the Minister accepted our point—that under public health legislation it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to direct vermin—for example, rats—how to operate within the HATs. They might stop at the boundary because they would not want to leave the Secretary of State and go to the local authority. On the other hand, they might prefer to be in a local authority area rather than in a HAT. That is the absurdity of the matter, and it is why we have great difficulty reconciling the undemocratic nature of HATs with the democratic local authority areas that will surround them.
The project in Abbeyhills failed miserably because there was not full consultation with the tenants, full commitment to the project and full understanding of the variety of housing needs and other factors that affect people's lives. I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to accompany me to that estate some time. We can see there what can happen if we do not obtain commitment and encourage the tenants to work with us on a project:. I am sure that the Secretary of State would learn a salutary lesson by visiting that estate and seeing the consequences of designating an area.
We can see a more positive aspect of the issue if we consider another designated area of Manchester. Public expenditure was allocated to a particular project in Manchester in which I was involved when I worked in the housing department. That involved the use of a Department of the Environment mechanism. I am surprised to find myself saying that the Department produced a mechanism that proved valuable in consulting tenants in that part of Manchester. I do not wish to introduce another name that: may be abused later, but the mechanism was called a housing action kit. I am sure that the Secretary of State, or his advisers, will remember it, although I am not sure whether it is still in operation.
That experimental mechanism allowed local authorities to go into specific areas and visit a specific number of properties to find out what people wanted. That is similar to the consultation in respect of the housing action trusts. The aim was to find out what sort of houses and


environmental and recreational facilities people required to improve an area at a time when money was allocated to such projects.
In Manchester, over the years, there has been a massive cut in those resources. We cannot now carry out such consultation using the Department of the Environment mechanism, and central Government must now intervene and impose a housing action trust on the local authority. That is a waste of effort and resources, and there is no longer a democratic way in which we can find out locally what people want.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has visited the Miles Platting area of Manchester, but, if he has, he will be aware of a successful project, based on provisions similar to those in the amendment, which ensures that local people are properly consulted and do not have their lives changed by imposition rather than by democratic discussion and consultation. Unless the Secretary of State accepts our amendment, the impositions in the Bill may lead to complete failure in the allocation of resources to a particular area. However, if we follow proper consultation procedures and involve tenants, the projects can be an immense success.
One of the greatest problems in fulfilling those processes is due to the massive reduction in resources in the housing investment programme which, presumably, will be reallocated from central Government through the housing action trusts. We must try to amend the clause to introduce some democratic processes into the procedure. We cannot use such processes in Manchester, as is the case in many other parts of the country, as no doubt my hon. Friends will point out later.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was chairman of the housing committee in Manchester in the late 1970s, there was a housing investment programme of about £67 million. Last year, Manchester bid for about the same amount of money in real terms—£122 million—but we ended up with little more than £20 million to fulfil Manchester's housing needs. What will the Government do about that? We know that a feasibility study is being carried out in one part of the city.

Mr. Spearing: If that is so, does my hon. Friend agree that that feasibility study, about which he may like to give us details, is now, unless my amendment is accepted, being given legal authenticity?

Mr. Bradley: That was certainly my interpretation of what has been going on. We pressed for clarification on that in Committee. Many residents from the area in which the feasibility study was taking place co-operated because they wanted to know what would happen to their homes and their lives.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has brought us some startling news this morning. It seems possible that the Secretary of State is acting beyond his powers because, as I understand it, we are debating the Report stage of the Bill, which therefore has no legal standing. If local authorities start acting without legal powers, councillors are liable to be surcharged. We need to know how much money is being spent, and by whom, and on whosea

authority this feasibility study is being carried out for something that is not legal. I realise that the Secretary of State has legal immunity in the sense that he cannot be surcharged for his own decisions. If he could, he would have been bankrupted many years ago. How much money is being spent on the operation that my hon. Friend has experienced?

Mr. Bradley: Unfortunately, I do not have that information, although I am sure that the Secretary of State would clarify the status of the feasibility studies that are taking place in cities such as Manchester, and their relationship to the possible designation of housing action trusts. I should like to know that, because I should not like in any way to construe or even suggest that there is any possibility that the Secretary of State is acting outside his terms of reference. I am sure that he would like to clarify the exact purpose of the feasibility study. If that clarification is not forthcoming, I must continue in this vein and give my interpretation, because that might clarify the matter. The Secretary of State might be able to help me to know exactly what is happening in Manchester and the likely future developments there.
However, first I should like to identify the area where, from my understanding the feasibility study is still continuing—the Hulme area of Manchester. I believe that the feasibility study is linked to the housing action trust. We had a massive lobby of the Committee by tenants from Hulme. I asked the Minister whether he was prepared to meet them to discuss the study, about which they were anxious.
At that stage, the Minister thought that the lobby was a publicity stunt, which I thought a rude response to people who had taken time, trouble and effort to travel to London from Manchester to discuss their housing needs with the Minister. Although their request was rudely rejected, not long afterwards the Minister scuttled off to Manchester to have those discussions with the tenants. I use the word "scuttle" because, as a Member of Parliament representing a Manchester constituency, I was not informed that the Minister was visiting Manchester.
Although the area of the housing action trust is not in my constituency, we have already heard, in the eloquent speeches made by my hon. Friends, about the effect that the designation of a housing action trust can have on local housing plans. The area that I represent in Withington has the greatest demand for the housing that is available in the city of Manchester. My fears relate to those people who may be displaced because of the designation of the housing action trust. Because of the way in which the housing action trust will be set up, there will be no responsibility for homeless people in the housing action trust area and that will put greater pressures on my constituency and other Manchester constituencies bordering the area of the housing action trust.
It would have been reasonable for the Minister to inform local Members of his meeting so that we could express, on our constituents' behalf, our fears about such a designation. I can only assume from the Minister's visit and discussions—I shall happily give way if this view is not sustainable—that there is a link, although perhaps tenuous, with a housing action trust.

Mr. Corbyn: Did the Secretary of State inform anyone in Manchester at any stage that he was considering having a housing action trust in that part of the city, or did he


treat the Manchester people with the same contempt with which he treats the House most of the time, not telling people what he is doing?

Mr. Bradley: It is rather the other way round. The tenants assume that a housing action trust will be imposed on them. They want to talk about that imposition. What is to happen will be much clearer if there are open and wide-ranging discussions with tenants, local authorities and Members of Parliament. It would be much easier on Report, when we table amendments, to have a statement on the areas to be designated and on whether Manchester will be chosen to "benefit" from designation.
Given the opportunity, Manchester would have carried out renovation, rebuilding and modernisation work within what we can only assume is the designated area. It is adjacent to the recently designated urban development corporation. The small urban motorway running east-west just south of the city centre is the Mancunian way. To its south is the housing area, which is in poor condition and requires a great deal of repair, renovation and new build to give decent housing to the people who want to live in Hulme and Moss Side. The urban development corporation is the strip of land between the Mancunian way and the city centre. Part of the UDC's brief is to inject yuppie housing into Manchester.
People who live south of the Mancunian way do not want the urban development area concept to be extended into their area, forcing them out when yuppies take over properties sold to the private sector against the wishes of local people. That is why they want to be consulted early, not to be told what will happen to them.
The achievements and consultation that have taken place in Manchester are a model for our proposal.

Mr. Corbyn: There seems to be a problem about the political control of areas where housing action trusts may be imposed by the Secretary of State. Does my hon. Friend have any evidence that, before this operation with the tenants, the Secretary of State had been in close consultation with what remains of the Conservative party in Manchester?

Mr. Bradley: It would be difficult for the Minister to be in close consultation with the Conservative party in Manchester, because it is a dying species.

Mr. Corbyn: I said, "with what remains".

Mr. Bradley: What remains is becoming increasingly remote. Conservative Central Office has established a new action team in Manchester.

Mr. Corbyn: Did they consult the local Conservatives?

Mr. Bradley: The new head of that action team has been appointed from the leafy suburbs of Surrey. His task is to revitalise the local Tories.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member has been tempted off the straight and narrow by his hon. Friend, but he must now address his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: The new head of the action team has not chosen to live in a property in Manchester or in one that will be within the housing action trust area. He is hunting around the foothills of Saddleworth for a property from which to try to revitalise central Manchester.
Manchester has done a lot by way of consultation over the years, and we are now informing tenants of what can be done. I hold in my hand a leaflet headed "Co-operation works." In this pamphlet we talked about co-operation between local people. It explained to people in the Hulrne area, which could be within the designated consultation area, the type of proposals that existed when the pamphlet was printed. It referred to local launderettes, the need to consider the environment, the problem of dogs and litter, cleaning estates and the work of renovation. There was also reference to local policing—a vital matter for communities.
That leaflet was issued in 1973. Over 15 years ago we were talking to the tenants about the needs of an area that may be designated as a housing action trust. It represented a model for consultation. The housing research section in Manchester does an invaluable job in providing information. The city council, in a survey among the residents of Hulme, dealt with the whole range of activities and the needs of local people. If the Government followed that model, this amendment—which is designed to correct the Secretary of State's ideas of what consultation is about—would not be necessary.
Some eminent bodies have considered the sort of proposals that we are debating. For example, Shelter, in its submission on housing action trusts, said:
Housing action trusts do not even make a pretence at being democratic. It is government choice, not tenants' choice. Transferred council tenants and local people will have little confidence in future housing opportunity, for power will not only he out of their hands, either as individuals or as local electors—it will be concentrated in the hands of nominee board members meeting to decide policy in camera … the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament only through the ineffective channels of statutory instrument scrutiny.
When we discussed this area of consultation in Committee, we tabled many amendments in an effort to persuade the Government to see the wisdom of getting tenants involved in the process to ensure that changes in policy became effective. We suggested, for example, a ballot of residents after the designation of an area. We thought that Conservative Members, who say they believe in democracy, would agree to such a step.
Secondly, we suggested full consultation for residents on the structure of the housing action trust, which is what we are talking about. Thirdly, we suggested a veto for the local authority over the designation of the HAT, which it could use if, for the area to be designated, it had a programme about which it had consulted fully. Finally, we suggested a ballot of tenants on transfer to the housing action trust. All those mechanisms would make consultation and accountability more effective.
8.30 am
One of the best features of the consideration of the Bill was the number of tenants' groups which came to the Committee from all over the country. They came to discuss with the members of the Committee what was going on and to find out how they would be consulted, what their rights would be and what would happen to their homes. The lack of information from the Government was making them anxious. We must remember that it is their homes we are talking about. We cannot impose a Government diktat on them.
There was every opportunity for the Government and for Conservative Members to talk to the tenants. Although we won the argument in Committee overwhelmingly, we


lost the amendments because of the Government's majority. Probably the Secretary of State will accept the amendment now, because it is sensible to have full consultation. If tenants do not want it, the housing action trust will not succeed.
The Conservative election manifesto encapsulated what the Government claim to be their position on the housing action trust and on consultation with tenants. The manifesto said:
The next Conservative Government will…give people greater choice and responsibility over their own lives …Our goal is a capital-owning democracy of people and families who exercise power over their own lives…They would take the important decisions—as tenants…—rather than having them taken for them …But what this Conservative Government has done is to make it easier for people to…decide such things for themselves.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): indicated assent.

Mr. Bradley: I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) if he wishes to make an intervention. The hon. Member was nodding vigorously in support of that quotation. I should like him to explain to me, because clearly the Secretary of State will not, exactly how the Government proposal for housing action trusts fits in. Would the hon. Member like to comment on that? No.
We have been on our feet for about 14 hours. There have been numerous sedentary interventions of the sort that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire made, but not one word will appear in Hansard. Is not that a travesty of the Government trying to defend their position? The hon. Member was not in Committee on the Bill. He was not interested in housing and probably knows very little about it. Apart from the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), there is not another Conservative Member here who was on the Housing Bill Committee to make a contribution on this important matter.
It is worth reflecting on the ministerial statements that have been made on this subject. The Minister has said that he would not impose HATs if tenants objected. That cannot have been a mistake, because he said so at least twice. The first occasion was a meeting of the Housing Consultative Council for England in the autumn of 1987. The second was the one-day conference organised by the Institute of Housing in March of this year. On both occasions he said that housing action trusts should not be imposed. I shall be happy to allow messages to come down from the Box at this stage, if the Minister wishes to make a correction. I am not sure that the hod carrier is ready for the run. Yet again, there is no correction being made, but I am sure that one is on its way. Meanwhile, I shall have to rely on those statements.
I shall be even more relieved to have the Minister's confirmation that it is still his view, but he is not in the Chamber. Unfortunately, I do not have faith in the Secretary of State to make the same statement. That typifies the problems that we have had throughout the proceedings on the Bill—the conflict between the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on those matters. We see also how the iron hand is now in control. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Secretary of State is present to answer this debate and that his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has taken to his bed.
I am extremely flattered that the Prime Minister has joined us, and presumably we may now have an answer to the question of housing action trust designation. I am sure that the Prime Minister has come here specifically to relieve the anxiety that is felt in Manchester, and to tell the House from the Dispatch Box which trusts are to be designated. I would feel privileged to give way to the Prime Minister on that particular point, if she would like to comment. Obviously she has come to make some statement about the Bill, which we must all be anxious to hear.
Tenants want uncertainty to be removed and to know what are the Government's intentions vis-a-vis consultation and imposition. They do not want democratic control by local authorities removed, to be replaced by the imposition of an undemocratic body without consultation. The amendment will ensure that tenants are properly consulted in the way described in the Conservative party election manifesto. I am sure that it is to reaffirm the contents of that manifesto that the Prime Minister has come to the House this morning.
In considering the question of tenants' choices and rights, and the right of local poeple to be consulted about their lives and their future—

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: In cases where tenants have been consulted—by, for example, the Conservative and alliance coalition at Milton Keynes—and where there were plans to offer consultation in Peterborough, Telford and Shropshire last summer, have not the Government—fearful of tenants making a choice to go with their local councils rather than with housing action trusts or similar bodies—repudiated those democratic methods and preferred to endorse autocratic methods?

Mr. Bradley: That is right. I can cite a similar example of a survey that was undertaken successfully in Wythenshawe by the research unit of Manchester's housing department. Wythenshawe, of course, could be a candidate for a housing action trust. That survey showed, as has just been pointed out, that 76 per cent. of respondents on the council estate, irrespective of their current tenure, considered the housing legislation to be bad, and 77 per cent. wanted to stay with the council, their first choice of landlord. That result is significant because it is reflected throughout the country. Where tenants are properly consulted, they overwhelmingly reject an alternative landlord and say that they want to stay with the local authority.
A housing action trust should not be imposed upon people against their will. We are talking about people's homes, lives and families. The amendment goes only some way to providing some sort of consultation, but it is better than nothing. It is a step in the right direction to give power to individual tenants, as identified in the Conservative party's manifesto, to make their choice. If the Government wish to uphold their manifesto commitment, they will support the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: First, let me welcome the Prime Minister to the debate this morning.

Mr. Forth: Where is the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Banks: Perhaps he is fielding a few more early-morning telephone calls—I do not know.
The Prime Minister is an expert on houses, because she has so many of them. If she would like to join in the


debate, I for one would be delighted to hear her speech and ask a few questions that I have been dying to ask her from the Dispatch Box. I understand that she has not made a speech from the Dispatch Box since the Westland disaster and I can only conclude that her presence here this morning is to announce some other catastrophe that is about to strike the nation.
I was hoping that the Secretary of State might break his Trappist silence and say something in answer to many of the questions that have been directed to him so far. Two questions to which the Secretary of State knows that we should like answers—we are prepared to go on for a lot longer in order to get them—are how many housing action trusts will there be, and where will they be?
It seems reasonable at the very least for the Secretary of State to give us an answer to those questions after 115 hours of debate in Committee. We are considering housing action trusts, and the Secretary of State has still not revealed where they will be. I cannot believe that there has not been some considerable consideration as to where those HATs will be located. We have heard a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence to suggest that consultations are already taking place, although with whom we do not know. Perhaps when the Secretary of State comes round to speaking, he will tell me whether there is any truth in that at all.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman should sit down then.

Mr. Banks: I am happy to sit down when I have read this list out to the right hon. Gentleman.
Will the right hon. Gentlman confirm or deny that the following states in the following areas have been pinpointed as being housing action trusts—in Southwark, the north Peckham and Gloucester grove estates; in Tower Hamlets, Solander gardens and Shadwell gardens, and the Berner, Ocean, Boundary and Holland blocks; and in Lambeth, the Loughborough and Angell town estates? I happen to know that last estate well because I used to live on it and I should be interested to know whether my old home-—which unfortunately does not yet have a blue GLC plaque on it—will be becoming part of a housing action trust.
I mentioned the various estates in Canning Town to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We know that a would-be Conservative Member of Parliament in Newham has been having discussions with the Minister's political adviser about whether Newham can have a housing action trust. I say "would-be" because, as the Secretary of State will know, Newham is very much a Tory-free zone, and we intend to keep it that way.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that his principle on where housing action trusts are to be located will be the same as his principle on where green belt can be built on—namely, that they will not be located at the foot of his garden.

Mr. Banks: If the Secretary of State were to give an answer, he would say, "Not in my back yard, sonny." That seems to be his general approach. It can happen in everyone else's back yard, but not in his own. That is another example of his double standards.
Let me continue with the list of estates pinpointed as housing action trusts. In Leeds, they are Halton Moor,

Seacroft and Gipton; in Sunderland, Downhill, Town End and Hylton Castle; in Sandhill and Wolverhampton, Windmill Lane, Whiteheath and Heathstone. If the Secretary of State knows that any of those is likely to be designated, he owes it to the House to say so. I shall not invite him to stand up and do it now, as he has declined every invitation so far, but I hope that when he replies to some of the debate—as I assume he must eventually do—he will give us the information.
We should like to ask more questions about the HATs. How many properties will each of them have, and what other land will be attached to them? What will be the proposed financial terms of each transfer? How will local authorities continue to manage the debts attributable to property that they no longer own? Those are basic questions; without the answers, we are not really in a position to move on from this part of the Bill. If the Secretary of State wants in any way to be constructive today—that would be breaking the habits of a lifetime, but I am being optimistic—he must direct his attention to them.
The questions are particularly pertinent to amendment No. 308. Clause 55 sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to designate a housing action trust. Amendment N o. 308 relates to clause 56, which sets out his obligations to consult over the designation. That does not mean much, because he does not have to consult a great deal. For example, the Bill does not oblige him to consult the tenants whom he will be transferring from the familiar control of the local authority to the hands of the HAT. He is merely obliged by clause 56(1) to consult the local authority or authorities in whose area the HAT will be situated. and by clause 56(2) to bring the proposal to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it. I should very much like to know—as, I am sure, would many people on the estates that I have mentioned—whether he will be consulting them.
Clause 56(2) merely states:
Before making a designation order, the Secretary of State shall take such steps as appear to him best designed to secure that the proposal to designate the area in question is brought to the notice of persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected by the proposal.
That is a fairly permissive piece of proposed legislation, which enables the Secretary of State to do a great deal, or nothing whatever. Knowing the present Secretary of State, I would expect him, in his rather laidback and indolent fashion, to choose the latter course.

Mr. Spearing: It might be opportune to repeat a question in the presence of the Prime Minister because she has some legal background, which may not be the case with the Secretary of State for the Environment. Is it not the case that we are being invited to validate in law consultation which may be taking place about which we know nothing and which may be partial and incomplete? Is it not a matter of legal irregularity for there to be retrospective legislation of this kind without proper reasons being given? So far we have been given no reasons for this. [Interruption.] I would have given way to the Secretary of State earlier. However, the Prime Minister should be aware that we are considering retrospective legislation of a most questionable type. We are doing that in the presence of the Prime Minister, who is a lawyer, and she should have known better because her name is on the Bill.

Mr. Banks: I said earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is just too nice for politics. If he really thought that he would receive a reply from the Prime Minister, he surprises me. Having done a dry run as Leader of the Opposition, I am quite prepared to nip round the other side of the Chamber and try a dry run as Prime Minister and perhaps attempt an answer to that question.
I am going to milk this situation for everything I can because this opportunity is most unlikely to come my way again. As I explained, I resigned as Whip, which is catching in the Labour party. However, I found myself back as an agency Whip—a kind of privatised Whip—to carry through the remainder of the Bill. I think that we are doing a fairly good job at the moment. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that word has got around that the Prime Minister is here and that a number of previously unfamiliar faces during the night have appeared.
Clause 56(2) states what the Secretary of State plans to do to notify people who will be affected by having their area designated as a housing action trust. What sort of notice is he going to post? No matter what anyone says, if the Bill is enacted, it will affect many people. We believe that it will affect them to their detriment, and the Government believe that it will affect them to their advantage. We will have to wait and see. However, we can join hands on the idea that it will affect a large number of people.
When I looked at the newspapers on Tuesday to see what the Government and Opposition press had reported, I noticed that in The Times, The Independent and The Guardian, very few of whose readers it might be argued will be affected by the Bill, there were large sections reporting the proposals. In newspapers like the Daily Mirror and The Sun—the majority of whose readers will be affected by the proposals—there was no word about the Bill.
If the Secretary of State wants to give notice of the proposals, he should do so in The Sun or the Daily Mirror and not in The Times or The Independent. A very good argument for televising the House can be made when we deal with proposals like the Bill which will affect millions of people but which are not reported in the press. There should be extensive coverage not because of our speeches from the Back Benches or from the Dispatch Box but so that people can receive information that will affect their lives in future.
When the Secretary of State decides how he will notify people, I hope that he will bear in mind that it is not good enough to put an announcement in the London Gazette. He needs to ensure that everyone involved is contacted through the medium with which they are most happy.

Mr. Corbyn: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect that the Government seem able and willing to spend large sums on advertising the armed forces and Britain opening for business in 1992, but that a serious attack on the lives and future of tenants in council estates throughout the country appears to be a state secret? Tenants are not allowed to know that they are about to be thrown to the wolves of property speculators and have their homes taken from them.

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend that this Government are good at spending vast quantities of taxpayers' money, dressing up their campaigns and trying to put the best gloss on them. They achieve that by having

the glossiest of glossy pamphlets. We have seen many examples of that, usually with the Prime Minister in soft focus on Department of Trade and Industry pamphlets. When one has a lousy product it is best to dress it up in the glossiest form of packaging so that people are deceived. It is a well-known marketing technique.
What amuses me is the way that the Government attack local authorities for their attempts through newspapers and other means of communication to inform people of the evil impact of Government policies on them. Local authorities are prevented from doing that, while the Government use vast quantities of taxpayers' money to put over party political policies which do great damage to those same individuals. The Government know all about how to squander taxpayers' money.

Mr. Spearing: The Prime Minister says that she is a great enthusiast of morality. Does my hon. Friend recall that the Government paid £5 million of taxpayers' money to tell taxpayers, or Sid in particular, that they should buy what they already owned? Is there not a moral duty on the Government to spend a modicum of that sum on The Sun and the Daily Mirror to inform the public that the Government intend to take from people in various places what they own at a low price and without saying what they will do with it?

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party is extraordinarily good at that, and I congratulate the Prime Minister on the way she manages to deceive large numbers of people for a large part of the time. That is because the Conservative party has had a lot of practice at it. The day the people wake up to the way they are being exploited by the Government will be the day when the Government will be thrown aside and a Socialist Government elected. Despite the brave smiles on Conservative faces, that day is not far off; I assure them of that.
Amendment No. 308 refers to clause 56(3). My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South in a cerebral speech which he sat up half the night writing, states that consultations will take place before the Bill becomes law and will be sufficient to satisfy clause 56(1) and (2). This is retrospective legislation and yet another example of the way the Government, who are so arrogant that they are prepared to dismiss any objections and opposition—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister should be allowed to make a dignified departure. I hope that she has heard something which even at this late stage might help her know that she has made a complete mess of this Bill. It will not win the Conseratives any support.
Like political fund ballots, the Bill has had a perverse effect. I have attended many meetings about the Bill, especially about housing action trusts and the pick-atenant provisions—or the pick-a-landlord provisions as the Government prefer to describe them. The Bill has alerted a large number 0of tenants to the dangers that they may face should the Bill become law. The Bill has politicised many tenants in the same way as the issue of political fund ballots politicised many trade unionists.
9 am
The Government have tried to get away with it all by passing the Bill through the House as quietly as they can. Because of the extreme nature of the proposals in the Bill, however, we have been able to alert a large number of tenants to what will happen. When we come to discuss the


proposals for pick-a-tenant, I believe that the Government's objectives will he thwarted time and time again, as they already have been in regard to a number of the new town development corporations.
Amendment No. 87 relates to clause 56, which sets out the consultation required by the Secretary of State before a housing action trust is set up. Clause 56(2) states that the Secretary of State is obliged to take steps to bring such a proposal to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from setting up a housing action trust in an area where the majority of persons likely to be affected are opposed to it.
We find it difficult to square the removal of homes from local authority control where the tenants, in common with other local residents, have the opportunity to elect their landlord every four years to a non-elected body, where all the members of the controlling board are appointed by the Secretary of State with the Government's stated aim of increasing tenants' choice.
In the Government's earlier manifestos, they spoke about increasing tenants' choice, but one cannot square that with the proposals in clause 56. I have ceased trying to square the irreconcilables that are contained in the Bill—we merely content ourselves with pointing them out.
Despite what was said in Committee, it is clear that HATs can be imposed on a local authority whether it likes it or not. That is undemocratic and hard to bear, but those tenants whose homes are removed from local authority control do not even get a look in. They will not be consulted as a result of clause 56(2); they will only be notified of the proposal. For that reason, we are promoting amendment No. 87, which ensures that, where tenants and residents are opposed to the proposal it should not go ahead.
The two amendments show that the Secretary of State wants to load all the dice in his favour. He wants to be able to ride roughshod over the objections of the local authorities and to ignore the wishes of the tenant. Indeed, it is possible that he will not even have to bother to consult the people who will be affected. We are not surprised that that is profoundly undemocratic—we are always angry, but we are not surprised.
Unless the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box and gives us some positive answers to straightforward questions, which he knows deserve answer, frankly he cannot expect us to do anything but press the amendments to a Division.

Mr. Ridley: It might be helpful if I give such information as I can in response to the questions asked by the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley).
First, like every other hon. Member who has spoken, they asked when the list of housing action trusts will finally be produced and what will be on it. No final decisions have been taken. None of the places mentioned by the hon. Members for Newham, South, for Withington or for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has been decided upon. They are the subject of possibilities and rumours. The lovely idea of the key importance of one of my political advisers having met a Tory candidate is absolutely wrong.
I can put hon. Members' minds at rest. No secret or final decisions or unannounced consultations have taken

place. When the Government have finally made up their mind they will announce the list, during the time when the Bill is in Parliament.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: I have listened to several long speeches, and I want to reply to them and make progress.
The consultation process consists of three stages. This is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South and his hon. Friends. In the first stage, we declare a certain area to be a prospective housing action trust. So far, the trust has not been set up. Next, I consult local people and the local authority about my proposals for setting up the HAT. We have drafted a "Dear Occupier" letter, about which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West inquired. Its information will appear not in the newspapers, but in the letter box, which is a much better way of ensuring that people get it. On the basis of that test of opinion I shall decide finally whether to put an order before the House to designate a particular HAT.

Mr. Boateng: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning was right to say that we hope to set up housing action trusts with the consent and agreement of the tenants, but the decision will be mine, and I shall decide according to what I believe to be right. We are talking here only about the principle of making an area a HAT, whose transfer will be from one public sector body to another.

Mr. Boateng: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: Now I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South about retrospection. His amendment seeks not to make these consultations legal until after Royal Assent. He claims that it is retrospective that I have the power to hold these consultations with local people before the Bill becomes law. There have been no such consultations yet, because no HATs have been declared. The consultations will take place only after they have been declared. We cannot consult people when the people concerned have not been told who they are.
This is not retrospective by including it in the Bill, everybody knows what the law is. Everybody now knows what the draft clause which the House may approve will be. Everybody knows that retrospection means a change in the law after someone has done something in the belief that it was within the law. The law being changed after such an act is committed is the form of retrospection that we all eschew.
Opposition Members who seemed to be a little worried about that may remember that, on 9 March, I made a statement in the House saying that at midnight that night there would be certain changes to the capital control rules for local authorities. I said that those would later be enacted and they have been, although there is a further stage to come. That is exactly the same process as the one that is being carried out here, except that that was a more important matter because it was the finite definition of the law in relation to financial transactions. No Opposition Member claimed that that was retrospective, because it was not. Everybody knew what the law was when he came to do whatever it was he was about to do.
The second matter is the order of procedure. I do not wish in any way to usurp the functions of the House or of its advisers and Clerks. My suspicion is that the definition of a procedural point by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the question about hybrid instruments was right. It is not for me to give a verdict, but I think that I agree with his view. That procedure has been followed with urban development corporation orders that have been petitioned against. If it is a hybrid procedure for the order—it is not for me to give a verdict on that—then that is accepted.
The next phase is the true consultation. One does not have a HAT until one has an order, and it is only then that one can consult. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Withington said on that point. All those matters and many others, including the precise terms of the tenancies, the way in which they will be treated and the arrangements for the tenants' forum so that they can have close contact with the board, will be for the housing action trust. What the trust will do will be a matter for major consultation.
The hon. Member for Newham, South spoke about planning. That will be a matter for the housing action trust and not for me. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I would direct the HAT about planning, but that is not the case. I shall be the appellate and the court of appeal. That is my function in relation to any planning authority, and such authorities make decisions about planning permission, although they will be required to conform to a local structure plan—if there is one for the area. In that sense, the position is the same as with any other planning authority.
The hon. Member for Withington made great play about some secret plot. I did not gather the full import of what he was saying. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning visited Manchester last month and the visit received full publicity. He went to Hulme and had talks with Professor Valerie Karn. There is some lively discussion going on there about whether the right thing to do for the Hulme estate is to set up the feasibility study that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, more or less promised in 1985 as a way of studying the problems of that estate. That is still on the table.
Another option discussed in Hulme was that it might be better to make it a HAT, but no decision has been taken. Until a decision has been taken as between those two options—Which are completely alternate and not complementary—that gives the hon. Gentleman the answer that he wants and shows how mistaken one can be to believe in the conspiracy theory when trying to keep the House amused at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning. [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman spoke, it was 8 o'clock.
9.15 am
The hon. Gentleman also seemed to believe that in some way this was a dreadful imposition upon people to make their areas—[Interruption.] The Opposition confirm it. It is astonishing that the Government have offered £125 million over the next few years solely to improve the houses—I have been sitting here on and off during the night—yet hon. Member after hon. Member has

complained about the condition of the housing stock in their area—how run down and badly managed it is. The Government have said that they will visit the worst areas and then we shall liberate those people from the misrule of the councils.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members resume their seats? The Secretary of State plainly is not giving way.

Mr. Ridley: We have the recently published National Consumer Council's Gallup poll of council tenants showing that, even before the Bill has been passed, as many as 21 per cent. of tenants would like to have a social landlord, such as a building society, a housing association or a co-operative. Another 27 per cent. would like more information before reaching a decision. Let them have what they want. Opposition Members are not prepared to do that.
Neither amendment is right or necessary, and I invite the House to reject them.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Basically, I should like to speak about clause 56, dealing with consultation. I noted the Secretary of State's reply on consultation. The point is that he has said that he will consult after designating an area. Amendment No. 87 seeks to provide that consultation shall take place before designation, and that is for a special reason.
I am opposed to housing action trusts. I believe that local authorities, given the necessary resources, can perform as well as any of the proposed ideas. However, if housing action trusts are introduced—it appears that the Minister will insist on that—the test will be whether they work. That must be the only test for any legislation. The best way to make the trusts work is to have full consultation before an area is designated. We ask for that in amendment No. 87, and that is not asking for a lot. It is important that in those areas—some of them will be experimental—there should be consultation with everyone involved to ensure that housing action trusts are a success. I am against them, but, if they are to be introduced, I hope that they will be a success for the people who live in those areas.
Obviously, some matters are laid down about how the consultations should take place. The Secretary of State will, for example, take into consideration the balance of local authority and private housing. That must involve local authorities and tenants, and there is nothing wrong with that process. Another aspect is the physical condition and design of the housing; and whether the tenant is in the private or the public sector is but a minor detail. It is no use simply saying that a design is no good. It might be that, as with Airey houses, tenants cannot obtain mortgages because the exteriors of the houses are not good enough, although the insides are perfect. All that they need are new exteriors and then the tenants can obtain mortgages and really go to town. That must be part of the process of consultation.
There is nothing wrong with studying how local authority housing is managed. Housing associations might pick up some good ideas from local authorities. I am proud of the local authority housing in Doncaster, and I should be happy for anyone to look at that.


There must be consultation about the living and social conditions and the general environment of the area. It is no good designating a small geographical area as a HAT if the surrounding area is no good. It might be necessary to consult on a broader basis than just the HAT, and there is nothing wrong with that. The important point is that consultation takes place. I cannot accept the Government's argument that there should be no consultation until they have decided on the areas. That is not playing the game. Consultation is necessary to ensure success and to carry the people along with the scheme.
Another important factor is the repair and improvement of homes. It might be that near to a HAT is a badly rundown private housing area. Perhaps, with the right consultation, the Government could take over the whole area and give the environment a lift. That sort of consultation can bring good results.
The Secretary of State must surely agree that housing must be managed properly and effectively. Everyone who has a home would subscribe to that. There must be consultation with those who help to make the decisions. It is also a fact of life that HATs will involve, for example, health services. If it is terribly rundown, it is no use building it up and occupying the houses if there are no health services. The health services must be consulted, as must the community care services, because a number of the homes may be occupied by the elderly.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am puzzled as to why the hon. Gentleman is spending so long questioning what he describes as an absence of consultation. Clause 56 lays down that the Secretary of State must consult every local authority included in the proposed designated area, and that he
shall take steps to ensure that the proposal to designate the area in question is brought to the notice of persons appearing to him to he likely to be affected by the proposal.
What more can one say?

Mr. Welsh: The Minister has said that he will decide whether consultation goes ahead, but, in real consultation, one has to come to an agreement. It is all very well holding consultations and saying, "I am the Minister. It does not matter whether you have no community care or health centres. The scheme will still go ahead because I am the Minister and I say so." I am referring to meaningful consultation, which is vastly different from the Minister's idea of consultation.
We are dealing with important undertakings. The Minister will make the housing action trusts responsible for the maintenance of private roads that fall within their scope, all at public expense. But where will the public expenditure come from? It will come from the local authority. On many estates, the roads are not kept up to the correct standards, and that will cost the highway authorities a great deal of money later. The Minister says that the highway authorities will have responsibility for those roads, but the local authorities will have to maintain them at their own expense, so they may not be up to standard. We are talking about other people's money. We are always told to be careful with taxpayers' money, so we must ensure a good system of consultation through the housing action trust schemes.
An important factor in getting things up to modern standards is the police, who form part of the local authority. If we do not consult the police authorities, they

may not cater for a scheme in their forward plans and may not have sufficient money to ensure that an area is properly policed so that everyone can live the good life.
We are asking for common sense in consultation, but we do not seem to be able to get through to the Minister. Perhaps he distrusts local authorities, although I do not. If he distrusts them, he should take another look at them and see the good work that over 90 per cent. of them carry out.
Local authority education provision is excellent. Education is one of the largest parts of local authorities' budgets. The local authorities may agree with all the points about consultation, but say, "Can you wait a few months before you start so that, by the time the kiddies are living in those new houses, the new school will be built?" There is nothing wrong with that—that is meaningful consultation—but the Minister wants to take that out of people's hands. He appears to be implying that there will be no local authority representatives on the housing action trusts, so there will be no umbrella coverage. Nice new houses will be built, but there will be no community to serve them. That would be a disaster of the first order. However, if there is proper consultation, the scheme can be made to work effectively.
We cannot say, "Here is a geographical area on which we will spend money." That area may need to play a different role. It may need more local government money spent on it, which might not be available at that time. Is it not common sense to negotiate with the local authorities through consultation and then to make the decision? That is the simple and right thing to do.
I do not want to go over the brief about consultation, but another important aspect of consultation involves the people who will have to live in the homes and whether they can afford the rents. It is possible that the decisions that are made may prove impossible for the people who have to live with them and whom one would like to serve—for example, the poorer sections of the community—because the prices may be suitable for middle-class people only. If that is the case, the middle classes will move in and the people whom we all want to help will be unable to live]n those properties.
9.30 am
I am trying to suggest the best ways in which I think we can approach this issue. I hope that when these matters are considered, through consultation, the Minister will give some thought to private estates in northern mining areas. They may be attached to public sector land. Perhaps, through good consultation, people could be approached and the standards of those houses improved. There is nothing wrong with that.
I am sticking to the substance of the amendment and saying, "Let us have good consultation." If a man is worth his salt, he can consult. If a man is worthy of a public position he can carry the people with him. If the Secretary of State has any faith in himself, he will accept the amendment because he will take up the challenge, knowing that the people with whom he will deal will want to do their best for local people. I suggest that on this occasion the Secretary of State should agree to support our worthy amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is welcome. By my calculation he made his premiere 14½ hours after the beginning of this section of our debates, and was encouraged—

Mr. Ridley: I sought to intervene early, in the debate on the fifth group of amendments. I do not think that I can be blamed if that comes rather later than it might have done.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to make that point. I suppose one could say that when, out of the 250 amendments, 119 are Government amendments we are making relatively solid progress when, by my calculations, we have gone through 46 groups of amendments on Mr. Speaker's selection, with the remaining 114 still to discuss. I do not know when we calculate that at this rate we shall be going home to bed or to breakfast. It may not be for some time yet.
The Secretary of State was being encouraged to open the box. He did not, but he stirred the House into some sort of life. I suppose that he and the Prime Minister together at 8.30 in the morning are enough to stir anybody into life after a long night. It certainly sounded as if we were having a hornet's nest opened, even if it was not the box.
The Secretary of State made some illuminating if not altogether consistent revelations, as far as one can judge from any normal use of the English language. First, he said what the procedure would be—I think that we are all grateful to him for clarifying that. He said that he would decide on prospective housing action trusts, consult on the proposals and then an order would be made.
I have taken a different view from that expressed so far by Opposition Members. I think that it is better to discuss the principle without knowing the specific sites, otherwise one gets bogged down in discussions of those sites. It is sensible to discuss the idea and its general application first.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State would clarify whether relatively small, concentrated areas are to be grouped together—for example, one area for one place, such as one side of the river in the development corporation in London, or whether he still envisages a series of small islands that would come under one housing action trust and be spread over a wider area.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider amendment No. 87. I smiled somewhat at the second of the three phases described by the Secretary of State—the consultation on proposals, or "Dear Occupier" letter. It sounded like Reader's Digest: "You have been singled out. You are the lucky recipient of our unique, once and for all offer. You, dear reader, are one of the people who will now qualify to fill in the form for the prospects of a jackpot." The reader will be given the golden key to a rather uncertain door. I am glad to know that the letters have been drafted and the word processors have been at work. No doubt some lucky people will soon receive the letters. I do not object. If the Secretary of State thinks that people in part of my borough, Liverpool, Manchester or elsewhere should be the beneficiaries of Government funding, I would not resist.
The Secretary of State said, rightly, that one should not resist the idea of the Government coming to the rescue of some of our worst estates. I resist, however, the idea of it being a uniquely Government operation and a complete takeover, if the Secretary of State wishes. The right hon. Gentleman resists amendment No. 87, which refers to a majority of persons consulted opposing their area being designated, even though he said a few minutes ago that the orders would be made "with the consent" of the tenants and said, even more tellingly, "Let them have what they want." If the principle of the Bill is revealed between 9 and

10 o'clock on the third day of the Report stage as being, "Let the tenants have what they want," there must be substantial redrafting. For example, we must accept this amendment and amend part IV and have a voting system that conforms with normal procedures, whereby majorities mean majorities, minorities mean minorities and property cannot be transferred from the public sector to another sector by a vote of none in favour and less than half against.

Mr. David Alton: And a vote from the dead.

Mr. Hughes: "And the dead," as my hon. Friend chimes in from a position which, compared to where I am, looks like the grave.
I accept that the tenants should be given a fair choice and allowed to consider the options. I am not against the Government coming in with additional money to bail out some of the worst estates. It is imperative that that is done in co-operation with local authorities and local people. In an interview reported in the Local Government Chronicle in December, the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
It has to be done with local understanding.

Ms. Primarolo: In Committee, when replying to questions on the attitude of tenants who were forcibly transferred to housing action trusts, the Minister said that housing action trusts could not work effectively if either the local authority or the tenants disagreed to the trust being set up—a very unambiguous answer. The Secretary of State, giving us his brief definition of consultation, said that he "hoped" to get the tenants' agreement, not that it was necessary to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that tenants will be compulsorily transferred, so the consultation is a sham, whether or not there is an individual letter.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is right to point to the validity of amendment No. 87, which I support, because it says clearly that if after consultation the majority of the persons consulted are opposed, it should not go ahead. Like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who opened the debate, I speak with relative authority because I represent part of a development corporation area imposed on a substantial number of my constituents without their consent, which proceeded, under orders put forward by the Secretary of State and approved by the House, to take land from the local authority. Then planning decisions were taken by non-elected members of, originally, a secret although subsequently an open committee that was in no way accountable to the local community. The Secretary of State may be the court of appeal, but he is also involved in the court of first instance, because he appoints everybody who sits on it and he can remove the members when he wishes. So it is an appeal to the same person with a different face.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that the Secretary of State will intervene if I get this wrong. Does the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) agree that in respect of the LDDC the right hon. Gentleman is more than a court of appeal? In March 1987, prior to any formal planning application, he made a great statement about what the planning arrangements for the royal docks should be. He did that as an initiator giving directions to the LDDC. He now finds himself in the formal statutory


position of being possibly an adjudicator on a formal planning application. Of course, he can say that it is in accordance with Government policy which he made for that area over a year ago.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is ironic that our debates were graced by the Prime Minister for half an hour just when we were debating for the first time on Report the creation of more quangos. This is the very Prime Minister who said on coming to office in 1979 that she wanted fewer quangos and less direct Government involvement on the backs of the people. The reality is that more and more quangos have been set up, with all the members appointed by Ministers or Secretaries of State, and at the end of the day they have to do as the Secretaries of State tell them.
The structure, electoral systems and so on of local government might need to be amended. Local government is not perfect, but at least it is a separate, autonomous and independently accountable tier which can represent people without always having to how to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Alton: Although I agree strongly with what my hon. Friend has just said about the need for accountability and the need for local government to ensure that local residents and tenants have the chance to make as many decisions as they can about the running of their estates, does he agree that sometimes tyranny is exercised by local government? To take the city of Liverpool as an example, the wishes of tenants have often been ignored when the local authorities have wanted to establish something like a housing co-operative. Surely the key is the need for greater local accountability, with more resources. If tenants are to take over in a place like Liverpool, where there are 6,000 empty properties owned by the local authority, it is pointless unless resources are given to the council to enable it to take over the properties and improve them as the tenants would wish.

Mr. Hughes: Not only is my hon. Friend right, but he speaks with the authority of someone who has chaired one of the largest housing authorities in the country. During his time in office in Liverpool one of the keynotes of the administration was that tenants were given much more choice.
If it were true, as the Secretary of State asserts, that the principle of the Bill is to let tenants have what they want, whether they be under the control of local authorities, housing associations or private sector landlords, I would not object to the substantive part of the Bill. The tragedy is that often it will not be a case of letting them have what they want in a free and democratic way, but "Let them have what I arrange that they will have unless they violently and cleverly manage to object."
There was an extraordinary postscript to the debate in the other substantive comment of the Secretary of State. He gave us a new definition of the word "retrospection" and the concept "retrospective". Clause 56(3) provides:
Consultation undertaken or steps taken before the passing of this Act shall constitute as effective compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2) above as if taken after that passing.
The Secretary of State defined that as being not retrospective. The reality is that any legislation stating that action taken before it became law will count as though it was lawful is by any definition retrospective—and I am sure would be adjudicated as such by any court of law.
The Secretary of State may use his authority and that of his Government to change most things, provided that he has Parliament's approval—but he does not yet have the power to change the definition of words, however hard he might try to persuade the House otherwise. Subsection (3) clearly intends that consultation undertaken before the enactment of the Bill will count as if it had occurred after the Bill became law.
I do not necessarily say that the Government could not as a matter of policy rather than legislation decide that their interpretation would apply. However, the Secretary of State should be honest enough to tell the House that the provisions of the Bill, as in so much legislation these days—probably more than in the past—are retrospective, and seek to enforce retrospectively that which only ought to be done after the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
A little more light has been thrown on the subject of housing action trusts, but we still do not know when they are to be, where they are to be, or quite what they are to be. The hope of those speaking in support of the amendments is that action groups will not be imposed on those who do not want them, but that instead one should, to quote the Minister of State,
Let them have what they want.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: For most of the time that the Bill has been debated on the Floor of the House and in Committee I have been engaged in work on other Bills and have not had an opportunity to intervene. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate, albeit at an unusual hour.
In my area the Bill has caused fear, confusion and anger. The Secretary of State, in a remarkable intervention, spoke of giving people what they want. He went on to make it clear that it is a case, not of giving the people in the houses what they want, but of giving the Secretary of State what he wants and thinks is good for them.
Before I entered the House I was the first secretary of the Banks of the Wear co-operative housing association, which is now of great standing in the north-east. It is the first-step association for a very large number of subsidiary housing co-operatives. During my work for that association—which was some time ago—I learnt the hard way what consultation and involving people in real choice about their housing needs is all about.
At that stage the housing association was working in the Sunderland area, but it now operates throughout the region. Banks of the Wear is committed to letting people have just what the Government have talked about—quality housing at a price that they can afford, and over the quality of which they have some control.
I was dismayed when I read clause 56, because it appears that the Government have learnt nothing from the lessons taught by organisations such as the Banks of the Wear, as well as by local authorities, about the manner which consultation should be undertaken and choice expanded.
I should not have been surprised, because the other Bill with which I have been involved is the Education Reform Bill. In that measure, too, the Government talked about choice, but when we examined it in detail we recognised that it would remove and restrict choice. That will be precisely the effect of claus:56.
The amendment begins to spell out ways in which tenants may have some minor reassurance that proper consultation will take place. However, consultation is a poor substitute for democracy. Consultation is a poor second best to giving people some control and proper choice through the ballot box. I am horrified that the Government, despite all their fine words, reject that opportunity.
The Government could have taken the opportunity to recognise that in the past eight years they have so starved the public and private rented sectors of resources that things really are in a sorry state. Because of that starving of resources we now have to inject a lot of money. No Opposition Member would disagree with that. What we would disagree with is the cavalier way in which the Government seek to do that. Far from consulting and involving people in any real choice, the Secretary of State has made it clear to us that he has no intention of properly consulting and involving people, and I am dismayed by that.
I was the secretary of a housing association, but I was also involved in community work, so my professional activity was to enable people to have choice and to teach them how to consult properly. Had the Secretary of State joined the course that I taught and presented his case as an argument for consulting people about their future, I am afraid that he would have had little chance. If he had not learnt quicky, he would have failed the course.
Consultation is important. The Secretary of State cannot dictate the full terms of that consultation, because that would negate the meaning of the word. Consultation is no less a relationship than other relationships, and both sides must have a real involvement in it. The Secretary of State has not given us any flavour of the nature of his involvement, nor has he allowed the tenants, and those with whom he seeks to consult, much control over their involvement.
I ask the Government to reconsider. I do not believe that this matter is less important than the financial arrangements in previous Bills about which the Minister talked. To some people their house is their main form of security. It is the main way in which they can believe that they have a place in the world. It is important to them. To dismiss those important feelings in a cavalier way is not worthy of the Government.
I ask the Secretary of State to have another look at the amendments, which are only minor. They could have gone much further, but they should at least ensure that tenants feel that their wishes, aspirations and concerns are listened to. Whatever the Secretary of State may say, I have heard from tenants' groups and housing associations throughout the country who simply do not believe that what they think matters an iota to the Government.
If there is to be consultation, people must believe that it will mean something. What the Government are saying enables us to give housing associations, local councils and tenants little reassurance that the Government are serious about taking their views into consideration. What will the Government do to ensure that the groups with whom they intend to work will trust them? The evidence to date is that they would be very silly to do so.
However we may feel about how local housing ought to be managed, we know that the Government will not agree.

But people will have to continue living in those houses, getting on with their neighbours and developing relationships with their landlords, whoever they may be. They deserve no less than that the Government take them seriously, listen to them and develop a system in which they and we can have confidence. I hope that the Government will begin to listen.

Mr. Corbyn: Both amendments are important. Although I personally wish that the housing action trust proposal were not included at all, I feel that the least that we can do is support the amendments, which at least guarantee some form of consulation and some real say for those who will be affected.
The Secretary of State's peculiar intervention, apparently prompted by a visit by the Prime Minister to make him get up and say something, demonstrated enormous contempt not just for the House but for council tenants up and down the country. The right hon. Gentleman has announced that he will liberate them from the difficulties in which they find themselves. This is the same Secretary of State, in the same Government, who over the past nine years has taken millions of pounds away from local government, penalised authorities that have attempted to improve council estates, threatened them with surcharges when they have spent money on those estates and disfranchised Liverpool and Lambeth councillors for doing precisely what he claims to want to do himself, such as, namely, improve conditions on estates. It is arrogance and contempt of the first order for him to announce that he is to let loose the property boom in the south-east on a number of estates that he has encouraged local authorities to allow to run down.
Council estates are often badly designed because of a cost yardstick imposed by the Department of the very same Secretary of State, which encourages over-dense estates, with a lack of open space, gardens, play facilities, nurseries, creche and shopping facilities and community halls. The Department then has the arrogance to blame local authorities for the estates being badly designed.
I do not entirely exempt all local authorities, architects, planners and councillors for the problems on council estates. I well understand those problems, having been a councillor for many years in the borough of Haringey. But I know perfectly well that our biggest problem with building estates were the arguments with the Department of the Environment about the amount that it would allow us to borrow to build them. The arrogance with which the Government treat those who try to solve the problems is quite breathtaking.
The Government are not proposing to consult tenants about how the estates can be improved. If they wanted to do that they would follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) about proper consultation. If they were serious they would ensure that the tenants had a real and genuine voice in how the estates would be run. Instead, there is a proposal from the Secretary of State, who sits in the splendour of his office in Marsham street, which I understand he visits occasionally between his long holidays and his visits to his country home in his constituency of Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

10 am

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend should not mention that.

Mr. Corbyn: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I understand that the Secretary of State has several country homes, so he must find it even more difficult to get to his office.
The Secretary of State will decide where the housing action trusts will be set up and what function they will have. Once they have been established, what will they do? What information will be given to tenants already on the housing estates about the work of these quangos? I am sure that the House would be more than happy for the Secretary of State to speak again if he has more information to give us on these points. Will he tell us who will serve on the HATs? The rumours going round at the moment are that all the estates earmarked for HATs happen to he in areas where there is a Labour majority on the local authority and where there is unlikely ever to be anything other than a Labour majority on the authority. We see that as an attempt to remove people's rights to elect a local authority that can do something for them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister said that it was likely that the areas where HATs would be declared would be known before the Second Reading of the Bill, but we had not heard where they were to be by the time the Bill entered Committee. The Minister then told us that there would be six HATs initially, but he would not say which areas the Government and the Department of the Environment were considering. He then implied—he did not promise and I do not want to put words into his mouth—that we would know which areas were under consideration before the Bill left this place. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will tell the House, the country and the tenants affected exactly where the Government are looking and where the HATs will be. The Secretary of State pretends to believe in consultation. Will he have the courtesy to give us that information?

Mr. Corbyn: Earlier valiant efforts were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to entice that information from the Minister. We understand that the Department of the Environment is spending money, but is failing to consult tenants in Manchester on the possibility of a Hulme estate becoming a housing action trust. That is like a colonial governor arriving at an estate telling the tenants that they may have a new landlord soon, although he is not sure who, how he will behave or what he will do. With all the arrogance of a colonial governor, the DOE is duly consulting those tenants and telling them what is happening. The Secretary of State failed to answer our questions earlier, and presumably he will fail to answer them now. That is not good enough.
We are entitled to know who and what kind of person is likely to be appointed to a HAT and what salary that person is likely to receive. The Government are perpetrating a growing trend of demonstrating their contempt for local democracy by setting up urban development corporations or, in the case of London, the LDDC, by paying a property speculator a salary that most people could only dream of if they won the pools twice over, to destroy the power of elected local government and so bring a property bonanza into that area. Are we to see

Tory party entrepreneurs promoted to chairs of local HATs to take over estates, to dispose of such property as they think fit, doubtless with the permanent and ongoing agreement of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Cummings: My hon. Friend referred to urban development corporations. I understand that the profits will go back to the Treasury. We have experience of this both with development corporations looking after housing assets in new towns and with the disposal of industrial assets, where moneys have gone back to the Treasury. None of that money has been directed towards dealing with housing defects in the new towns, nor was the Treasury prepared to release funds for extra finance to further industrial development through the provision of extra factory units. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace and that once again the Treasury—Mr. Money Bags—will gain at the expense of tenants?

Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to point to what is in effect a new form of double taxation. It is a remarkable invention of the Tory Government. A local authority retains the debt charges on the transferred estates, which are paid to the City—and they are considerable, running into millions of pounds—the housing action trust is established with a right to dispose of and sell such assets as it sees fit, and once it has subtracted the considerable salaries of the HAT members money will be transferred back to the Government. Local people, from a declining rate base, because of the abolition of domestic rates and the imposition of the poll tax, and on a declining income base, are expected to pay the debt charges of an estate that they have built, which is handed over to a HAT, which can sell it on to a bunch of property speculators, who can winkle out poorer tenants to create a paradise for the upwardly mobile so beloved of the Tory party.
If anyone doubts that that process can happen, I advise him to visit council house blocks in Wandsworth, which were built by the London county council before the war In a determined effort to solve London's housing crisis. They have now become city homes for part-time dwellers who mess about on the stock exchange during the week. That is not what those houses were built for or what public money was spent for, yet that is what they are now used for. There is a direct correlation between that process of creating double housing for the wealthy and people sleeping in cardboard boxes under Charing Cross arid Waterloo stations every night. That is the sort of society that the Secretary of State loves to live in. He loves to drive in his chauffeur-driven car past those people sleeping on the streets because they cannot afford anywhere to live in his meritocratic Britain. That should be treated with contempt.
To add to that arrogance, the Government do not even propose properly to consult people on the transfer of their area to a HAT. The Secretary of State will impose a HAT on an area, he will listen to the local authority view, proceed to ignore it, as in the case of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham when the LDDC was established, and proceed wih the HAT.
Despite the best efforts of the popular newspapers to deny people information about the Bill and the dangers of HATs, a whole new network of information has developed


of people in tenants associations, housing organisations, and campaigns to inform other council estates of just how dangerous this legislation is for them.
After Second Reading I wrote to every tenants association in my constituency explaining the Bill, what I considered to be the dangerous points of it, and offering to meet them to discuss it. Anyone who has been involved in work with tenants associations will know that normally a meeting is not a high point in life. Often only a small number attend, unless there is a particular problem on the estate. There have been massive meetings on every estate. They were not clamouring for an alternative landlord or for a property company to run their estate. They were asking what they could do to keep them out and prevent a HAT, what form of consultation was open to them and how they could influence the Secretary of State. I have to explain that we shall do everything that we can to demonstrate our total opposition to the imposition of HATs, but that the legislation is so established that a quango will be set up with the approval of the Secretary of State. My constituency has experience of such quangos and it has no public representatives in any elected position other than those from the Labour party. The Conservative party, however, has managed to contrive a sympathetic majority on the health authority by bringing in people from outside. That is the model that the Government will seek to copy if they are allowed to establish HATs.
A local development company wants to undertake some work around Finsbury Park, to adapt the Rainbow theatre for other things and to develop a shopping and industrial complex nearby. When the company, CIL Ltd., put forward its proposals it decided that it would also like to take over the Six Acres and Harvist estates. They were to be used partly to provide car parking for those using the local shopping facilities. That company's plans represent a precursor of my idea of a HAT and who it intended to serve. It was interesting that there was a massive turnout of the residents of the estates at public meetings. They told the developer that they did not want him to run their estates. Although the residents had many complaints and problems with the local authority's management of the estates, they understood that when an elected local authority was running the estate they could get at councillors and at the local authority. They had some influence.
Many of the residents had previously lived in private rented accommodation and they knew full well that once the management of an estate was transferred from a local authority to a trust and then on to a property company they would have no influence. They were determined to stay with the local authority, despite the contemptible way in which that authority has been treated by the Government, who have continually cut resources for housing repairs, improvements and developments.
Three blocks are in the process of being rehabilitated on the Six Acres estate, but the Secretary of State has now refused to sanction the order to rehabilitate the fourth block. That has created an apartheid system because the residents of the three blocks will enjoy reasonable housing but that will be denied to the residents of the fourth block.

Mrs. Wise: Has my hon. Friend noticed that clause 68 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to dissolve a HAT if he feels that it is expedient to do so? In the unlikely

event of a HAT proving responsive to tenants' wishes, no doubt the Government would dissolve it and transfer its functions to yet another quango that could be kept sufficiently tame.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is correct. The same practice is adopted for health authorities, which are quangos, apart from the local authority representatives sitting on such authorities.
I remember when the health authority in Brent said that it was not prepared to close the Neasden hospital to please the Secretary of State. A great tussle took place and the members of that authority were thrown out of office, even though they had been appointed by the Secretary of State. The same practice will operate in relation to a HAT to ensure that, just in case, by some miracle, a quango from whatever source, decided to be responsive to the needs of local people and not sell off estates and make the place fit for the property companies to move in, the Secretary of State can remove that quango from office. That is the system of government that will be introduced by the Bill.
Our amendments would at least ensure that local authorities were able to express a definitive point of view regarding the establishment of HATs. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a local authority, unless it was mad, would support the establishment of a HAT, because it would be stuck with the debt charges for buildings that already exist and might lose particular estates.
Although the Bill refers to housing action trusts playing a part in solving the problems of homelessness and overcrowding, unless I have missed something in it—hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will correct me if I am wrong—the trusts would not have the same statutory responsibilities as local authorities to house people under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. This is a generosity of spirit approach. I imagine that a housing action trust that gets an estate ready to sell off will not want to become too involved in bringing to the estate a lot of homeless families who want to buy the houses they are being put into. That represents yet another diminution of opportunities for the homeless.
10.15 am
If this process goes on, before this Parliament is out the same Secretary of State will arrive at the Dispatch Box to propose the suspension or repeal of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Many authorities are already in breach of their statutory undertakings because they do not have the homes into which to put people. Our amendments are basic and central to what we are trying to achieve which is to give tenants the right at least to have a say in what goes on in their own estates.
I shall quote briefly from the Conservative manifesto on which the Tories fought the last election. It says that the Conservative Government
will give people greater choice and responsibility over their own lives",
and continues:
Our goal is a capital owning democracy of people and families who exercise power over their own lives … They would take the important decisions as tenants … rather than having them taken for them … People want to decide such things for themselves …This Government has made it easier for people to decide such things for themselves.
What contemptible hogwash. The Tories say that in an election campaign, under the spurious cloak of freedom for those with money and enslavement for those without it, and propose now to direct that certain estates be taken


away from local authorities and handed over to housing action trusts, and the one group of people who are to have no say in the matter are the tenants who live on the estates. That is the pass to which the Bill has brought us.
The establishment of housing action trusts, the powers that they would have and the need for people to be consulted are important issues. The schedules to the Bill deal with the way in which the trusts will operate but are extremely vague about their constitutions, for example. They seem to give all the powers to the Secretary of State. The schedules are vague about remuneration, too. Will people on salaries of £50,000 a year, or more, take over big estates?
The schedules also mention staff, but say nothing about the conditions in which they will work. If staff are taken over from local authorities by housing action trusts, will they be employed on local authority conditions? I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, which includes a large number of members who work on housing estates—cleaners, caretakers, porters, lift repairers and all the maintenance workers that are necessary on estates. Are we to assume that behind the Bill lies an attempt to privatise many of the estates' services, to remove local authority conditions and the rights of trade unions to negotiate conditions for their members, and to replace them by new sorts of negotiations or imposed working practices? This is a Trojan horse that will destroy the living conditions of a large number of local authority staff who are already low-paid

Mr. McCartney: I ask my hon. Friend not to read too much into what appears on the face of the Bill. I remind him of the publication by the Government on Thursday morning of the proposals for the selling of council property, albeit in the first instance with the tacit support of the local authority. In the context of that White Paper, there is a clear indication that it would be ultra vires for the local authority and whoever buys the property to make arrangements for the transfer of the staff or for the contracts to be continued by staff of the local authority. That is even worse than what is on the face of the Bill. There is a taking away of any right to continue the work or even to tender for the work.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that. I was much involved in the transfer of former GLC housing estates to London boroughs. I was a negotiator on behalf of my union, and at that time there was never any suggestion, even from the Tory-controlled GLC, that there would be anything other than continuity of employment and recognition of past employment practices and of the contract of employment and all the working conditions that went with it. Those rights would be protected for individual employees who went to their new employer. There was no question about that.
Then we had the abolition of the GLC and the transfer of staff. For the most part, the paving Bill and the legislation and negotiations that followed recognised continuity of employment and the protection of the employment practices that people had enjoyed while working for the GLC.
Under the Bill an estate could be taken away from a local authority, and apparently the staff on that estate will be given no protection whatever. Once they lose their continuity of employment, they lose the right to go to an

industrial tribunal. That is important if people are being winkled out of their jobs by the new housing action trusts to make way for a private maintenance company to come in and run the estate. These are serious matters, but not one word is said about consulting the staff who work on the estates. Tenants will at least get an inkling, but the people who work on the estates are not even mentioned in this matter of the transfer.
The Bill is vague on the question of meetings and procedures. It merely says:
The quorum of the trust and the arrangements relating to its meetings shall, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, be such as the trust may determine.
Apparently the trusts can do as they like. The Bill also says:
The validity of any proceedings of the trust shall not be affected by any vacancy among its members or by any defect in the appointment of any of its members.
Presumably that is a protection against the Secretary of State, who is the most notorious law-breaker in the Government. It does not say anything about the applicability of the Public Bodies Admission to Meetings Act 1960, which would guarantee that the proceedings were held in public. From my reading of this, for all we know the meetings could be held in secret, and proceedings might not be published or made available to tenants who live on an estate that the housing trust has taken over.
There is much more that is dangerous and bad about this proposal and the lack of consultation that goes with it. If we allow the Bill to go through without making at least this small amendment, which would give tenants a real say about the transfer of their estate, we will allow legal robbery to take place. The trust will be able to take an estate away from a local authority, from the people who built and paid for it. Such estates were paid for, not by the Government, but by local authorities, which borrowed the money with the agreement of the Government. That estate will be given to the housing action trust, which will repatriate the profits to the Secretary of State, and the local authority will be stuck with the historic debt charges for the estate. That is the opposite of choice arid consultation and the opposite of democracy. I hope that the House will support the amendments.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State is to be invested with massive powers under part III of the Bill. Clause 56 paves the way for those powers. This is consistent with the policy that the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State, are adopting in legislation such as this Bill and the poll tax measures. They give massive authority to the Secretary of State. When I described the Secretary of State in that context as a municipal Mussolini, he thought that it was a term of endearment and did not understand the criticism.
I feel that the powers that are to be exercised over council housing estates and the pushing of them into housing action trusts is a disgrace when the history, achievement and democratic arrangements that surround the operation of council housing are taken into account.
Without the agreement of their elected representatives, or tenants taking part in a ballot, the council housing estates are to be moved into housing action trusts. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew an analogy between the provisions and the practices of Reader's Digest in consulting people on whether they wish to become readers of that magazine. That analogy was apt, in that sometimes when one has


with Reader's Digestand one sends the "No" answer back, one still receives the magazine. In this case, the housing action trusts will still be thrown upon residents.
A minimum form of consultation is required in clause 56 before a designation order can be issued by the Secretary of State. However, subsection (3), which amendment No. 308 rightly seeks to delete, allows consultation to take place prior to the Bill becoming an Act. That displays the arrogance of the Secretary of State and the Government, in that retrospective legislation is plainly intended. In fact, the provisions are worse than those that would be found in retrospective legislation, because they deal with matters affecting the present and then operate them only in the future. That assumes that the measure before us will be accepted in total. However, it is possible that legislation dealt with within a parliamentary system will be adjusted, amended or rejected. If that occurred, what would happen under this measure is that the current situation would be affected by legislation, or pieces of legislation, that will never come to fruition. That is not quite the same as retrospective legislation, but is an interference with the current situation by threatening something that will come along in the future. That is not the rule of law under democratic processes, but is something that might better be described as the "rule of Ridley".
Amendment No. 87 seeks a veto for the majority of tenants in an area where they do not want a housing action trust. That is the least that could be expected.
Council housing should be given the proper perspective when we consider this measure. At the time of the first world war working-class people lived entirely in private, rented accommodation—in insanitary hovels. It was because of the desire for housing that the Labour party got off the ground. It was not just because of trade union involvement. There was community involvement to gain decent and improved conditions for many people.
In areas such as Glasgow, the Labour party involved itself in rent strikes in 1916, and the one great success of the 1924 minority Labour Government was the Wheatly Housing Act, which enabled municipal authorities, which were increasingly moving towards Labour—for example, the Sheffield municipal authority—to embark upon council housing provision with the full support of working people, because it was to their benefit and they involved themselves in achieving an improved community. In fact, the gradual pull out of the depression in the 1930s was associated with improvements in housing—and nowhere was that improvement greater than in council house development.
10.30 am
Under the 1945 Labour Government, the insistence on public provision of decent housing within the local government sector was a key element in maintaining standards and the gradual development towards improving provision in society. Labour district councils have a proud housing record, even though they have been hamstrung by excessive interest rates for building council housing, so that money has to be borrowed over 60 years, and by the cuts imposed by the Government. There have also been periodic attacks on council housing through anti-social legislation such as this Bill and the Housing

Finance Act 1972. That Act was courageously fought by many people in my constituency, which I am proud to represent. It was also fought by the Clay Cross councillors, supported by their population, by 3,000 tenants in the Chesterfield rural district area and by 25 per cent. of tenants in what was then the urban district of Dronfield. The Bill seeks to crack that heritage. It is part of a fight against the Labour party in local government.

Mr. Cummings: My hon. Friend is well known in my constituency—indeed, he was born there. Will he comment on the plight of the Peterlee council home purchasers association? People bought council properties in good faith, which subsequently were found to be defective. Those people are now being denied funding from financial institutions to renovate their properties and they are finding it difficult to sell them because the same financial institution will not provide mortgage facilities.
The Minister does not want to know. I wonder whether there is any provision within HATs to give some succour to those who, in good faith, entered into—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Housing Defects Act 1984, which has nothing to do with the legislation before us.

Mr. Cummings: The HATs appear to be directed towards properties that can maximise profit. I want to know how the HATs will deal with home purchasers in their areas. Will it be flesh for one and fish for another?

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend has made a fruitful contribution and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to it. I was especially pleased to give way to my hon. Friend because many of my relatives are his constituents and I know that there is great resentment in his constituency towards this legislation.
The idea lying behind much of the Government's local government legislation—such as the poll tax, the various cuts, the grant and rate capping, the proposed poll tax capping and this Bill—is a political attempt to smash Labour's base. It is a similar tactic to that used in the Ridley plan to take on the trade unions. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedures by a Government who are deliberately changing legislation in an attempt to hammer one element of the political nation for their own political advantage. They do not pursue their views, values and interests and try to capture the support of the people and hit the Opposition in that secondary manner. Instead, they are directly developing plans to perpetuate themselves in office and undermine a significant element of the political nation. The idea of going forward in that way will seriously misfire, because the Government will push housing back to the pre-1914 situation that I have described, with all its hideous effects. As a result, working people will need Socialist-type housing, and that can be provided only by the Labour party. Instead of housing action trusts, we need more local authority housing, cuts in local authority interest rate burdens, restored rate support grants and tenants co-operatives and housing associations set on a decent footing, not as provided for in the Bill.
I am reluctant to mention council housing problems in north-east Derbyshire in case the Secretary of State decides to stick one of his HATs on the area out of pique, against the point that we are making, but there are many


problems. There is a good district council in north-east Derbyshire. It is not an extravagant council, and it looks after the population well and links in well with it. However, it still faces difficulties, one of which is the need for a massive central heating programme.
Some properties have had Parkray fires installed as the first stage of a central heating programme, but the money has not been available later to extend the programme. A nonsensical situation then develops in the winter, with Parkray fires and no central heating. People have to stoke up their fires, open the glass doors and huddle round the fire to keep warm. The water then boils up to such an extent that it has to be run off through the tap rather than going round the central heating system that should have been provided, yet what do we get? We get legislation to introduce water meters and privatisation of the water industry. Mayhem develops and there are cuts and great pressures in those areas, to such an extent that the nonsensical provisions in this measure begin to have a superficial attraction. However, they will not have that superficial attraction in an area such as north-east Derbyshire, where people are aware of the problems that the council faces and see the council as being associated with their interests and the local councillors as being close to the problems.
I hope that the Secretary of State will decide to remove HATs from this measure, give the councils the funds and authority to carry out their duties and help provide secure warm homes for our people at prices that they can afford. I doubt whether that situation will come about, so I can only ask hon. Members to support the amendment.

Ms. Primarolo: These amendments deal particularly with the question of consultation. Two Labour Members have quoted from the Conservative party manifesto for the last general election. That brought groans from the three members of the Government who were in the Chamber at that time. However, it is crucial to this part of the Bill, and we are referring to it because it demonstrates the illusion that the Government are attempting to perpetrate on the British people by trying to persuade them that they are being given a choice and are being consulted, when they are not.
In the announcements that the Government made in the run-up to the introduction of the Bill they talked about tenants being alienated from the landlords, and about accommodation and resource problems. Their solution to all those problems was to give the tenant, whether private, council or housing association, the right to choose and the right to have responsibility.
In a speech in Bristol the Minister for Housing and Planning made several assertions that go directly to the heart of these amendments. He said:
Until recently, no-one seems to have stopped to ask: houses owned by whom? Built where? According to what ideas about how people like to live?
I hate to disabuse the Minister, but we have a long housing history, through the Addison Acts, the Wheatley Acts and through the work of the Ministry of Reconstruction, which looked at exactly those questions. Indeed, local authorities have a long history of examining the way in which they run their council housing stock. We have never said that everything in the local authorities is hunky-dory. We know that it is not and that there are severe problems with design, location and, at times, the management of the

housing stock. Local authorities are attempting to change their management and design practices to overcome those problems.
One way of overcoming the problems is through the key idea of consultation, partnership and involvement. To be consulted, one needs to have information to be able to make judgments about whether one wants to be in a housing action trust. Much earlier this morning the Minister of State said that the consultation would be split into two areas. The first would be consultation with the local authorities and the tenants involved on whether the housing action trust would be set up.
The Minister gave three phases. First, a prospective area would be declared unilaterally by him. Secondly, there would be consultation which, according to the example that he gave, would be in the form of a "Dear Occupier" letter. The Minister did not tell us whether that letter would have a tear-off slip, or whether the tenants would be asked to respond on what they thought about the housing action trust—just that the tenants would be informed and that there would be a draft letter. [Interruption.]I am prompted to say that the Minister did not tell us the number of languages in which the letter might be written to help to ensure that people understand what their rights are if their mother tongue is not English. That point would deal with specific queries that were raised last night about ways of dealing with the Race Relations Act 1976. Then the Secretary of State will decide.
In response to some of the points raised by Opposition Members, the Minister said that the consultation about the ways in which the housing action trusts would function would involve their aims and the ways in which they would negotiate with their tenants once they were running. He said that those questions would be for the housing action trust to decide and consult on after it had been set up. Clearly, before tenants decide whether they want to be in a housing action trust, they need to know exactly what it will do.
10.45 am
The Opposition have referred a great deal to consultation. I looked up the definition in the dictionary, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had assured us that even the Secretary of State could not rewrite definitions. "Consult" means:
ask, question, interrogate, canvass, confer, discuss, deliberate, refer to, turn to, seek advice from. consider, regard, respect"—
and, most important —
take into account.
The three-point explanation from the Secretary of State did not deal with that definition. It appears that the Government's definition of consultation is, "Your choice is what we tell you. Your responsibility is what we as a Government decide is best for you." The Minister for Housing and Planning has made great play in many speeches—including the speech in Bristol and his comments in Committee—of the idea that there had been cataclysmic mistakes in housing and planning policy throughout this century and that the Department of the Environment and local authorities should take their share of the responsibility, so we are to have housing action trusts as the experiment.
The legislation learns nothing from the errors of expenditure and of excluding tenants from actively participating in the management, design and maintenance


of their homes. It does exactly what the Minister claims this "great piece" of legislation will not do—it dictates another formula to be followed through in housing. This is to be done in secrecy and with the minimum of publicity.
I remember, although I do not know why, a prominent member of the Government who made her maiden speech on 5 February 1960, the subject being the access of tenants and members of the public to information, publicity and council meetings. I am sure that every hon. Member endorses the practice of giving the public access. I shall not read the speech to the House, although I am sure that the right hon. Lady would be flattered if I did. The main points of the speech were that people needed information to make decisions. To exercise choice and responsibility, people needed information. To control those who made decisions on their behalf, they needed information and to be consulted and to participate. The right hon. Lady concluded her maiden speech with a sentence with which I entirely agree:
the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place in law." —[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1357.]
That was the concluding sentence of the Prime Minister's maiden speech.
One aspect of civil liberties is the right of people to say what will happen to their homes, especially when they are being conned by the Government into believing that they have a choice and will be able to exercise responsibility, when they will not be able to do so.

Mr. Bradley: An excellent survey undertaken by Manchester's housing research section revealed that 93 per cent. of council tenants in a HAT area expressed a preference to remain with the council rather than be transferred to a HAT. Eighty-nine per cent. of those responding thought that HATs were a bad idea and wished to remain as local authority tenants, come what may.

Ms. Primarolo: I have seen that survey and am pleased with its findings. It confirms what was said earlier by the Secretary of State when he mentioned a survey into the choice that tenants would make. The Secretary of State said that 21 per cent. of tenants would choose some form of social landlord. Presumably the term "social landlord" itself was not used, but interviewees would have named building societies, and so on. The Secretary of State said also that 21 per cent. of those interviewed required more information. He did not say what information that was. Presumably he did not know because he had not asked.
However, that leaves 52 per cent. of interviewees. The Secretary of State did not provide the House with any further figures, so presumably those 52 per cent. are the people who would vote against the transfer. That shows that the Government have no intention of learning from their mistakes, of making any adjustments, or of implementing an open government system as they claim they wish to do. What the Government are about is asset-stripping local authority housing stocks through the creation of housing action trusts and passing on as much of the burden as possible to —

Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it customary for Government Members,

including the Minister, to take no notice whatsoever of an hon. Member's speech, but to conduct a conversation with much hilarity?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Common courtesy should be extended to whomsoever is addressing the House at the time.

Ms. Primarolo: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only assume that Government Members are experiencing extreme alienation.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for both the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State to carry on behaving oafishly, as they have done for most of the morning, when an hon. Lady is addressing the House on this very important Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a matter of common courtesy that hon. Members should have the tolerance to listen to all views, whether they be popular or unpopular, and irrespective of the speaker's sex.

Ms. Primarolo: Thank you again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly agree with your sentiments. Such a courtesy should be extended to any hon. Member, and not just on the basis of sex. Perhaps that behaviour indicates what a very long night some hon. Members have had—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker—whereas other hon. Members have arrived fresh, having not participated, simply to cause problems in the debate. I refer, of course, to Government Members.
Under the guise of bestowing rights, and by trying to persuade tenants that they would be better off, the Government are establishing a formula for asset-stripping local authority housing and potentially putting at risk the remaining tenants, who could be faced with rent increases because of the unsatisfactory relationship between the methods of payment for those houses. I shall not discuss that now, because other amendments deal with the subject.
Ministers do not understand the definition of consultation. They are prepared to mislead and deceive the electorate with their "newspeak", saying that householders will have choices, whereas they will not. They claim to be introducing radical legislation that has learnt from all the mistakes of the past, but it has not. They make speeches without understanding properly the history of housing in this century. Within about five or six hours, albeit in the early hours of this morning, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning gave conflicting answers to the House. One minute the Government were trying to imply that tenants would not be forced against their will into housing action trusts, and the next minute they were saying, "But we hope that we can get agreement." There was no mention of whether the local authority should agree with it, or of the workers in that authority. There was no mention of proper democratic rights so that, at the end of the process, people would be able to control and participate in the management of their homes.
The only way in which this sham can be partly improved—unfortunately, it cannot be defeated completely—is to accept the Opposition amendments. If they are not accepted, it will be clear that the Government are trying to experiment with people's homes and their security, misleading them as to their rights and to what they may have in the future, simply to prove an


unaccountable doctrinal point. We do not want the Government to perform such experiments on the British people.
I hope that this group of amendments will be accepted and that we shall make the subsequent amendments to the housing action trusts to ensure that they are not a con or a form of asset-stripping. Most important, we must ensure that housing action trusts do not steal the money and assets that working people have invested in their council houses and give them to individuals for private profit.

Mr. McCartney: In Committee I dealt with this issue at length and discussed the principle behind the Government's concept of freedom and housing action trusts and how that tied up with urban development councils and what happened in previous legislation.
When discussing amendment No. 87, we should start with the White Paper published at 9 o'clock last Thursday morning entitled "Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of Local Authority Housing to Private Bodies." Paragraph 8 deals with protecting the interests of existing tenants and consultation with tenants. This is the commitment given by the Secretary of State:
Under Section 6 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, existing secure tenants of the local authority must he consulted before consent is given; and the disposal must not go ahead if a majority of the tenants affected oppose it. This Section does not apply to disposals to registered housing associations (although the current Housing Bill will change this) but the Secretary of State will normally expect the same rules to be followed even in these cases. The Dept of the Environment and the Welsh Office have issued a circular (6/88) which explains how Section 6 procedures should be operated.
Less than a week ago, at the beginning of the Report stage, the Government—without consultation, except with local authorities—issued a document about the large-scale transfer of local authority housing to bodies other than housing action trusts. They have given a commitment identical to that demanded by my hon. Friends for the past four hours in respect of HATs.
11 am
If the Government are not yet again to be faced with a complete dichotomy of view, we must depend on the measures that they decide to take to divest local authorities of housing stock. Local authority tenants may be consulted, and there may be a ballot to prevent them from being transferred to landlords not of their choice. Unfortunately, HAT tenants will he transferred without any real consultation or any consideration being given to their rights and wishes.
The north-west has seen the abolition of Greater Manchester and Merseyside metropolitan authorities. There is a link between what is happening in the metropolitan districts and the imposition of UDCs. Without any major abolition Bills being brought before the House, the Government are slowly but surely abolishing local government from large parts of the north-west, Tyne and Wear and other metropolitan areas. Without having presented the electorate at the general election with another proposal to abolish metropolitan district councils, the Government are now using such measures as UDCs and HATs to denude the local electorate—and through the electorate the elected members of local authorities—of many local government services currently provided through democratic accountability.
The Government fail to understand what is happening in local authorities. HATs are not unique. The Government are prepared in other circumstances to abolish the role of local government in the provision of services. What they do not say is that there are other means of providing far more democratic accountability.
Let me tell the Minister how tenants' consultations are dealt with in my local authority and relate that to what is happening in a London authority, with the Government's assistance. I should also like to discuss what is happening, in my constituency and others, to mining communities, with the connivance of the Government and British Coal.
I do not argue that everything is rosy in Wigan metropolitan borough council, that a mistake has never been made in its housing policies or that it does not wish to amend parts of its housing policy. But the borough has a sophisticated means of genuine consultation with residents and tenants, involving day-to-day housing management, the repairs programme, the allocation of resources in the community, the environmental strategies and the delivery of support services on priority estates and in designated housing action areas. That applies not just to council housing but to the concept of consultation with residents outwith the council housing stock. The arguments about HATs are not just about transferring local authority assets to the trust. In some larger trusts, houses in the private sector may also be included within the trust's boundaries. It is important to argue for the right of all tenants in the community, not just council tenants, to have a say in the development of support services for housing.
Wigan metropolitan borough council has designated 17 areas of major social and environmental deprivation on council housing estates. In addition, we have a rolling programme of housing action areas in our mining villages and townships where, because of its decay, the private sector has failed to pick up and improve the environment and housing conditions. The local authority has a long-term investment policy for upgrading, through housing action areas and the grant system, to improve the whole aspect of housing in the private sector.
That involvement has been achieved with the consent of the residents. I want to highlight the nature of that consultation and show how we developed an idea about a policy change through to the inception of the policy and how that policy is carried out with the consent and involvement of residents. In identifying the housing needs of the community—in this instance local authority estates —the first action is taken at a meeting of local authority tenants' representatives, local authority officers in the main departments involved and the local elected councillors to establish the priorities for that estate. Following the establishment of the principles of the priorities for the estate, an initiative group is made up of elected members and representatives of the local authority departments, tenants' organisations and outside agencies such as the Health Service, community nursing, the police and other community groups, including the probation service. It is the job of that initiative group to agree a programme of consultation, and a time scale for that consultation, with the residents on the estate. It must produce a draft report to highlight the issues that must be considered with the residents. It must decide what is to be achieved at the end of the consultation and the basic priority report to be presented to the next session of the residents' meetings. Following the work of the initiative


group, a preparatory report is prepared for tenants' and residents' meetings. Those meetings are held on the estate or in a designated housing action area.
The housing action area on the estate is broken down into zones so that consultation may take place in a meaningful sense with groups of residents in a block of flats or a street of flats, and there are no huge meetings involving 200 or 300 people. Instead, people are consulted individually.
The appointment of the chair of the consultation meetings is independent of the local authority, and the decisions of the meeting form the basis of the provisional reports submitted to the local authority. The provisional report will also include provisional plans drawn up by the residents in consultation with the community and landscape architects employed by the local authority.
All the proposals put forward by the residents at the consultation meetings are included in the report submitted by the tenants for the consideration of elected members. The report includes initiatives for the use of land resources on the estate, the use of open spaces for leisure or play facilities, the bringing of derelict land into community use, the fabric of the buildings and the refurbishment of buildings inside and out and the delivery and quality of services provided by the housing department and all other support services working on or around the estate or in the designated housing action area.
Once that preparatory plan has been approved, further tenants' and residents' consultation meetings take place to enable them to give a final view of the provisional report and plans. The local authority then holds a formal meeting with tenants in the residents' association, following which every resident receives a provisional newsletter and an individual letter seeking final views on the proposals to be put to the local authority, the Department of the Environment, the Manpower Services Commission or any other funding agency involved in the refurbishment programme.
That is a detail summation of the way in which Wigan metropolitan borough council deals with its residents and tenants, whether in a local authority housing estate or in the private sector of a designated housing action area. Once the report and scheme have been approved and submitted for financial resources, provisional starting dates are agreed between the residents and the local authority. Dates for reporting back on the progress of the scheme are also approved.
During the scheme a further report is approved for the continuation of consultation with residents about the delivery of services after the completion of any refurbishment scheme. That is vital. Consultations are not just about the scheme during the scheme, but are part and parcel of the delivery of services after the refurbishment programme. Throughout the whole programme a genuine close working relationship grows up between the local authority, its agencies and services with the residents in the community.
It is essential that when the Minister replies to the debate he gives a clear sign whether his Department believes that the type of consultation procedures that Wigan operates is the type that he wishes to see operated by the HATs. I do not say that flippantly. The Department of the Environment is greatly interested in Wigan

metropolitan borough council. It has already used two of our estates for training programmes for officers of its Department and for officers of other local authorities. The authority has participated in the production of a Department of the Environment video on consultation procedures and good working practices by local authorities with residents, both in council housing estates and in designated housing action areas. Therefore, the Minister cannot say that he is ignorant of what is going on. The DOE approached the authority of its own volition, asking to study its best practices in order to enlighten Department officers and local authorities about the work done there.
What are the positive results of involving tenants and residents in that process? My constituency probably has the greatest difficulties in the type, age and availability of its housing stock. We have seen a transformation of the private sector over the past six years. In villages such as Spring View we have seen a resurgence of the community and almost 90 per cent. take-up through the housing action area, an elected local representatives' committee with equal representation elected by residents and the local authority, an uptake of grants, environmental improvements, the establishment of a community centre and other developments, and the reintroduction of retail outlets, such as small village shops, doctors and other services. In the past year we have seen on the housing estates of Miller's Lane and, in the Wigan constituency, Norley Hall a transformation in the delivery of services and the involvement of tenants and residents. We have seen the growth of strong, vibrant local residents' and tenants' associations working with the local authority. Even now on the Norley Hall estate we have almost reached the stage where tenants are sitting down annually to work out the budget for the estate and to determine housing and services that are crucial to the development and improvement of the estate's environment. Those are positive results. A true sense of democracy has been introduced. The residents not only have a say in the development of the services and the refurbishment of their estates, but, in the long run, are involved in the day-to-day running of it and the delivery of such services.
11.15 am
As a result of such developments, the community is reinvigorated. People feel part of it and want to live on the estates. There is a dramatic fall in the number of lets on council house estates, as well as a dramatic fall in the number of vacant properties in the private sector. Such advances have been achieved by local authorities, and we must extend them to other local authorities and allow Wigan borough council to extend such achievements to other parts of the borough. The diminution of the resources available for the housing investment programme is not the answer. The HIP allocations to local authorities should be expanded and the Government should adopt a positive approach, give priority to the estate programme developments and encourage positive action by local authorities in conjunction with tenant and resident associations.
In Committee I discussed these matters with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I am afraid that, once again, the hon. Lady has absented herself from the Chamber. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has gone back to Finland or whether her absence is a temporary one. Unfortunately, on every occasion when I


seek to grapple with the hon. Lady—if I may use such a word—she seems to disappear. I am aware that in the past three months her fellow Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has been following this debate. I know that he has already met representatives from Wigan borough council and that he intends to visit the area in the summer. I am sure that he is clued up about Wigan and will be able to answer my questions.
In Committee I discussed the problems of sham consultations in respect of HATs. I had got into some difficulty with the Chairman about that. I said:
I was trying to outline the problems that may arise from sham consultations. Will the Minister consider one practical possibility? A housing action trust may cover more than one estate or area, either within a single borough or across two boroughs. After consultations, the residents of one estate may decide that they would like the HAT to have a neighbourhood office in their area, instead of centralised, bureaucratic control some distance away. If, at that stage in the consultation procedure, the HAT refused that request, would the Secretary of State take action to ensure that a neighbourhood office could be provided to work directly with the tenants or residents?"—[Official Report, Standing CommitteeG, 16 February 1988; c. 881.]
Such action would be essential to ensure consultation and the breadth of services provided by HATs.
In Committee it became clear that the Minister could introduce at a later stage—perhaps not with the six initial HATs—HATs that not only crossed metropolitan and other council boundaries but could be set up within the boroughs so that part of the housing stock could be joined in a housing action trust with the housing stock of another part of the borough.
What happens in a FIAT area where there is no current tenant or resident organisation? If the Government are to introduce common sense to their consultation proposals, it is essential that there is a fall-back position. In Wigan, where no current tenants organisation exists the authority, at the outset of the consultation procedure, has, as a matter of principle, assisted in establishing tenants and residents organisations. That ensures that there is a body independent of the authority which can represent the interests and views of the residents so that the consultation procedure is meaningful. In that way a body of opinion exists that represents the residents and if necessary it can negotiate and put across the views of those residents on proposals, not only about the property, but about the environment in which that property is situated.
The Minister should add a little more flesh to the views expressed by the Secretary of State. As well as having examined what happens in Wigan and other local authorities, we should consider, as a forerunner of housing action trusts, the example of Thamesmead. The Government have said on various occasions that, although Thamesmead is not a housing action trust in the terms of the Bill, it is certainly one of the organisations that they would look to as a mirror image of what should happen in a well-run HAT. So it is important to try to outline what has happened so far in Thamesmead and to relate that to what will happen in HATS if there is no real consultation procedure and no meaningful involvement of the residents. They should have a genuine say in what happens on the estate and in the development of policies for the estate —in the management of the housing stock, the development of land resources and the refurbishment of the environment.
The document "Thamesmead in Private Hands" says:

Thamesmead Town Limited just is not unpopular. The figures from the MORI poll conducted in 1988 show clearly that for the residents of Thamesmead as a whole, not even one fifth of them want their present landlord and show that it was the votes of the owner occupiers in the 1985 ballot who swung the vote against the local authority joint community trust option. The vast bulk of tenants would prefer some form of public ownership.
In January—February 1986, Clive Thornton, the chairman of the board of Thamesmead, promised in an article in a magazine called "Roof":
I intend to ensure that there is a process of referenda and regular communication even covering such basic issues a s rent.
Four months after Thamesmead acquired the estate, it made 5,500 applications to the rent officer for the registration of fair rents. There was no consultation, referendum or regular communication. It was clear from the number of those applications that the action was planned by the company months in advance. So much for the promises of a continuing relationship with the residents and tenants, and so much for the myth of accountability.
The Secretary of State seemed to hint earlier in the debate this morning that HATs could have associations of tenants and residents, but he was not prepared precisely to outline the nature of such bodies. At the back of his mind he may have been thinking about the arrangements in Thamesmead. In the article I referred to earlier, Mr. Thornton also said that he wanted "direct democracy" on Thamesmead. Exactly what that means can be seen from the way in which the operations of the nine community directors are restricted. None of them is an executive director. The company has all the real power, and it consists of Clive Thornton, the chairman, Phillip Glascoe, the chief executive, and a finance director, who is seconded from the National Westminster bank. The nine directors cannot be deselected or reselected for three years. They may not disclose any material relating to confidential items. Although board meetings are public, any item of interest to tenants, such as rents and repairs, is treated as confidential. The community directors may not disclose how they voted on any item, but must uphold the majority decision in public. In practice, that means that there is no way of knowing how or whether they represent their constituencies. The board has control over the election rules, and anyone who leaves it for any reason, such as resignation, cannot run again for election for three years. That prevents any kind of principled opposition being expressed through the ballot box.
That is the type of community forum that will be placed on housing action trusts and on tenants. Through the local government election process tenants have a genuine say in the development and role of their estates and a say in who manages them and represents the tenants. The Bill is not just sham democracy; it is the taking away of democracy and can be likened to what happens in Chile and in other countries where referendums are conducted and then held up as some form of parliamentary democracy. It is a myth to call that accountability. It is in no way acceptable to local authority tenants who have enjoyed the privileges of electing councillors to provide the services.
The Minister must address himself to the crisis in the coalfields in Nottingham and in Lancashire. At the behest of the Government there have been large-scale sales of British Coal property without consultation with the residents. That has left whole communities in a desperate plight. Given the Government's attitude towards housing


action trusts, how do they see British Coal's action in terms of consultation? Communities have been disrupted to the point where hundreds of families are living in abject misery. They have no real contact with the new landlord and no say about the repairs policy or about what happens on the estates.
Because of their policies towards British Coal the Government have allowed that situation to fester and there has been disinvestment by British Coal in its housing stock. The British coalfields require an answer to these problems. If what is happening there is indicative of the Government's attitude towards housing action trusts, no wonder tenants in my area are not only worried about the Government's proposals, but fear that they will take away their democratic rights of involvement in the community. They fear that they will lose their real say in what happens in the houses in which they live and in the environment in which the housing stock is placed. It is the development of front-line services that makes a community a living, breathing place for people and not an area for property speculators.

Mr. Graham Allen: My constituents do not want to see implemented the policy of selling off their council estates. They want a choice between homes to rent at reasonable rent levels and homes to buy at reasonable prices. They want proper modernisation and security and an end to house price inflation, which is currently being imported into the Nottinghamshire area by speculators. That reduces the chances of local people becoming owner-occupiers. All that they are offered by the Bill, the Tory Government and the local Tory council is the new policy of bodge it and flog it. That is evident in several areas of Nottingham. No new council homes for rent have been built by the Conservative council and waiting lists have been lengthening.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the debate, and the hon. Gentleman's speech does not seem to relate to the amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has been on his feet for only 40 seconds. He should be allowed to develop his argument.

Mr. Allen: I can understand Conservative Members not appreciating my arguments, but if they care to listen they will find that the truth will out. The local council has also refused to build any new homes for the frail disabled and for the elderly. Houses are cruelly being sold, thus keeping hundreds of disabled people on the special priority waiting list.
The clause and the amendment refer to consultation. In Nottingham, teams of researchers, opinion pollsters, have been crawling round the council estates in Nottingham —in Bestwood, Strelley and elsewhere—asking people what would be the least offensive way for estates to be sold off from under their feet. That is taking place in advance of the passing of the Bill. It appears that the Department of the Environment can act in advance of Parliament. Last week the Tory council planned to sell a block of maisonettes, but that was exposed by the vigilance of local Labour councillors.
It underlines what we said before the general election and last May's local council elections. The Conservatives have continually denied that parts of estates and, under the Bill, whole estates may be sold off. Bradford Court on the Crabtree estate in Bulwell, which is in my constituency, was due to be detopped—which means the removal of the top story of a double maisonette. That raised the condition of that part of the estate to such an extent that the local Tory council took the opportunity of flogging it off. Perhaps more will follow. That took place without the local tenants being notified and without even a letter being sent to say that it was being considered, let alone a proper consultation process, as is embodied in the amendments. It was stopped only because the local Conservative council was found out. It was so embarrassed that it withdrew the proposal at the last meeting of the housing committee. No doubt the proposal will return at the next housing committee if the council feels that the heat is off.
11.30 am
The key question is whether the right to buy council estates as opposed to individual homes will have the same flaws as the individual right to buy. Many people did well out of the right to buy. However, hundreds of my constituents at Bilborough had the right-to-buy carrot dangled in front of them, but cannot now sell their homes. They bought a pig in a poke. No building society will lend on those properties—the BISF steel-framed properties—but the Government, despite representations from myself and my predecessor, have not designated them as defective. My constituents therefore do not qualify for grants to bring their homes up to a mortgageable state. The Tory council, Pontius-Pilate-like, has washed its hands of those people, many of whom are elderly and have quite happily spent between 10 and 30 years as tenants. I beg the Minister—that is not something that I do lightly to accept the moral responsibility of his party and the Government and make new grants available to assist those victims of the right-to-buy policy.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to withdraw the proposals to sell off our council estates, before ever larger numbers of tenants become victims of the short-term, short-sighted and short-changing approach to public housing in Nottingham and throughout the rest of the country.

Mr. Spearing: I rise to reply on this group of amendments, the first of which I moved at about 6.30 am. I confess that if we were a train we would be about 12 hours late. I was expecting to make this contribution about 12 hours ago. The reason why I did not do so is evident to everybody. Unexpectedly, certainly to Tory Members, the intensity of concern throughout the country has been reflected by my hon. Friends and by the variety of practical examples that they have brought to bear on a practical problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said that the proto site in Manchester, which might become a housing action trust, was adjacent to an urban development corporation area. He reminded me that the possible site in Newham is also adjacent to an urban development corporation area. Clause 80 enables housing action trusts to get another authority to be an agent for them. That clearly shows a line of policy that the Minister may pursue when transferring housing action trusts to urban development corporations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned the lack of consultation where one might reasonably have expected it to have occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to Thamesmead and to the needs of the coalfield areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) asked how there could be genuine consultation if the Minister continued to resist amendment No. 87.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I should not like the House to go away with the false impression given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that Nottingham does not consult its residents. I shall mention just two projects. One is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where the tenants were consulted and they decided that they wanted a block of flats to be pulled down. There has been some dispute about what should be put in its place, but the tenants wanted it pulled down.
In our local press the hon. Gentleman has complained about lack of consultation in my constituency. When my constituents were consulted they said that they wanted a block of flats pulled down, and they are coming down. The hon. Gentleman's complaint is a spurious campaign for consultation on something that has not yet even been decided.

Mr. Spearing: I suppose that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman as a stand-in for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. I accept my hon. Friend's account of the matter. If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about consultation—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do.

Mr. Spearing: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should consider the merits of amendment No. 87. I see that he is now hurriedly looking at it. It is only by supporting the amendment that the hon. Gentleman can carry out the Conservative party manifesto, on which he was elected, to consult the people and to give them choice. Unless the House adopts the amendment, which would allow tenants in the proposed HATs to say whether they want them, there will be no fair and effective measure to discover whether they want them. The Secretary of State and the Tory manifesto say, "We will give people choice; we will give them freedom to decide," yet the Secretary of State is resisting an amendment that would provide the very machinery to achieve that. In view of the concern for consultation expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I hope that the Secretary of State will not resist the amendment.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. An hour and a half ago I briefly summarised clause 56, and, because of the criticisms about lack of consultation, I shall now briefly summarise clause 59. If such a trust were asked for in Nottingham, the clause provides that
The trust shall consult every local housing authority or county council
and
shall take such steps as it considers appropriate to secure …adequate publicity.
The clause also provides for those who live in the designated areas to be made aware of the opportunity to make representations about those proposals, and states:
the trust shall consider any such representations.

I hope that the House will consider that to be a fair summation.

Mr. Spearing: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, because, as I understand it, clause 59 applies to what the trust will do after it has been set up. It is consultation only about what will happen after that. We want consulation before the order is laid. I fear that the hon. Gentleman rushed into speech a little too hastily because he has not understood the sequence of the Bill.
My hon. Friends were absolutely correct to say that all the Government's protestations about consultation have been shown to be what they called a sham unless, even at this late stage, they accept—although I do not think that they will—amendment No. 87 or give a commitment to introduce a similar amendment. If the Government do not do that, people in another place may do so, and they would be well justified. I commend that course to Conservative Members in the other place so that they can put their manifesto into effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred to the question of staff. One of the great problems in this exercise is to obtain sufficient professional people, and there will be delays. There are always complaints about delays in respect of the Government's proposals for selling off council houses. That is because the number of people buying and selling houses in this enterprise opportunity state has increased enormously. One cannot suddenly pull a lever and change the direction of housing policy literally overnight through legislation and expect that the skills in the communities will operate automatically. It does not work like that. Is it intended to lure staff from housing authorities and from housing associations? Only a limited number of people know about housing management. We all know that it is a difficult task, particularly on the legal side, involving transfers and conveyancing. Solicitors will have a wonderful time. There will, therefore, be considerable difficulties on the staff side.
I wish to deal now with the central points contained in the questions that I put to the Secretary of State in my opening speech. That speech was lengthy, but I think that even he would acknowledge that the matters raised were important, and I was grateful for the way in which he attempted to reply to them. We are facing enormous change. There is the possibility of huge areas of council housing being disposed of to other management without even the tenants' choice being taken into account. In those cases involving individual applications to buy there will be a statutory consultation procedure, which we shall deal with later, but this is something different. This is a wholesale transfer by statutory instrument. Other people have called it a sale, and the property will be disposed of at about half-price.
To children in areas with housing action trusts that will be a confiscation, because they will not have the same access to vacancies as they would have under continuing municipal ownership. [Interruption.]The Secretary of State asks why not. They will not be entitled to such access because the tenure stipulated in the Bill, with, for example, mixed operations, will not enable local people to go on to waiting lists or to transfer from one type of tenure to another, such as, from a four-bedroomed house to an old person's dwelling next door, thereby allowing another family to move in, to the extent that they can at present.
I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State does not realise that. If he does not realise that, he cannot understand a great deal about the matter.

Mr. Ridley: I must protest at that because, even in cases of mixed tenure in succession, it is possible that there will be more dwellings because land can be used that is currently unused or underused. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the site occupied by a tower block can often yield more houses when the tower is pulled down than it does when it is standing up. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that, in those mixed tenures, far more people will exercise their right to buy and, therefore, will not be new purchasers. When a housing estate is made more attractive, many more people buy their homes.

Mr. Spearing: We shall deal later with the objectives of housing action trusts, which bear very much on what the Secretary of State has said. However, I wish to take him up on one particular point—that an increased number of people in a housing action trust area will be able to buy their own properties. He has given me the answer to the point that he raised. Does he not realise that, although that may be no immediate disadvantage to the people in the area, when they come to move or to depart this sorry world, their house becomes vacant? If the house is in municipal ownership, somebody living next door may be on the housing list and might be able to take up the vacancy. However—this is happening all over London at the moment—local people are unable to take up such homes because they cannot afford to buy them. Somebody probably comes in from outside, at the market level, and takes the house. People come to see me in my advice service about such matters.
The Secretary of State should hear practical examples from hon. Members who represent other parts of the country. I advise the right hon. Gentleman—I can give him the precise figure—that there are 300 fewer vacancies in the London borough of Newham every year because the stock available is reduced due to house purchases. Good luck to those who have bought, but that means that there are 300 fewer voids for Newham people every year. That is the answer to the Secretary of State, who has just said that more houses will be available for buying. They will not be available for the people who most need them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Secretary of State has also assumed that when problem council estates, such as the Hulme estate in Manchester, or the Marsh Lane estate in my constituency, are taken over by housing action trusts, and when money is spent on them and the nature of the development is altered by design improvements, there will be an increase in the number of dwellings. That is an absolute fantasy. When older council estates, such as those of the mid-1960s, have been improved and developed by local authorities or others in partnership, the aim has been to reduce the density. They have got rid of the maisonettes by decapitation. They have improved the environment by reducing the density. There will not be any increase in the number of dwellings. The Secretary of State does not have any idea of what council estates are like.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has summed up the issue. I will tell the Secretary of State what one council

estate is like. It is in an area that he may have in mind for one of his locations. It is the South Canning Town and Custom House Area of my constituency. The Secretary of State referred to tower blocks a moment ago. That area has eight empty tower blocks. It has 800 empty dwellings in the sky. If some of those blocks have to come down, for reasons that I may be able to explain to the House in a future debate, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that 100 homes will not be built on the site of each of those tower blocks. That would not be physically possible unless one rebuilt the tower blocks, and not even the Secretary of State would do that. What the right hon. Gentleman has said is, in mathematical and housing terms, incorrect. I hope that he will check that with his advisers, because I know that he listens to people with experience. If he checks, he may find that I am a little more correct than he is.
I shall comment on the Secretary of State's speech under the following headings: location, retrospection, consultation, hybridisation and aspects of planning. Those are the headings that I shall use, because they are the headings under which the Secretary of State courteously replied to my questions in an earlier speech. First, on the question of location, the Secretary of State still did not spill the beans about the sites. I take his point that he has no absolute obligation to do so, except that in Committee the Minister for Housing and Planning gave an undertaking. He said:
The answer is, before the Bill leaves Parliament. While it is before Parliament we shall bring forward our proposals.
That has been repeated by the Secretary of State. The Minister of State continued:
There will then be a prolonged opportunity to debate them in both Houses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 9 February 1988; c. 768.]
I submit that "them" can only mean those locations. I put it to the Secretary of State again that while he may announce those locations before the Bill leaves Parliament, there will manifestly not be a prolonged opportunity to debate them.
I am glad to welcome—rather like a cricket commentator—the entry of the Minister for Housing and Planning at the very moment when I have been quoting what he said in Committee. I fear that the undertaking that he no doubt gave in good faith—I do not blame the hon. Gentleman—has not been fulfilled by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, perhaps for reasons that they can determine between themselves.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with the Minister's undertaking is that the housing action trusts could be announced during the summer recess, before the Bill leaves Parliament? If that happened the measure would still be in line with what the Minister said, but would be an insult to the House of Commons. We should like an undertaking that the HATs will not be announced while Parliament is in recess.

Mr. Spearing: I hesitate to disagree with an hon. Friend. My hon. Friend might be right about an announcement being made, but it might be made after Report and Third Reading. Theoretically we may have an opportunity to discuss it, but only within the bands set by any Lords amendments. Although there may be an opportunity for prolonged debate, I do not believe that there will be any guarantee once we have finished this debate.
The second of my headings is retrospection. The Secretary of State has said that the legilsation is not retrospective because everyone can read what is in the Bill and it is not like a measure that catches a person because it is unexpected or unknown. The Secretary State says that we know about this, so how can it be retrospective? I try to understand the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and to him that seems reasonable. Alas, from a lawyer's point of view—I invite the Prime Minister to pay attention because she is a lawyer, and we certainly know it—it is not a definition of retrospection. It is a description of retrospection; it is a description of some retrospective legislation.
The Secretary of State was right. We have announcements such as the Budget, and we legislate later to take account of or regularise them, but that is not the same. The right hon. Gentleman invites us to endorse
such steps as appear to him best designed to secure that the proposal to designate the area in question is brought to the notice of persons".
Whatever the Secretary of State chooses to do to tell people what it is all about,
such steps as appear to him best designed
covers that definition of consultation, whatever it is. He is self-regulating and acts retrospectively. Although the Secretary of State may be right in his description, he is wrong in his definition.

Mr. Cryer: The Secretary of State has a curious view of retrospective legislation, as he does of most things. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way that retrospective legislation could be produced under the right hon. Gentleman's definition would be if all public and private Bills going through this place were kept secret? As soon as the First Reading occurs, there is notice that a Bill is on its way through Parliament. There is notice for every bit of legislation. The notion that because people know about a Bill it is not retrospective does not hold water.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be right. I understand, to some extent, why the Secretary of State thinks in these ways. My guess is that someone drew up clause 56 to stop judicial reviews. It prevents anyone from claiming that, whatever the Secretary of State does, it cannot be challenged. To that extent this legislation is not as retrospective as the very worst legislation, but it is retrospective in effect.

Mr. Ridley: There is an additional argument, which is so obvious that I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has spotted it. I am perfectly entitled to consult anyone about anything, without requiring any statutory power. As the hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the clause is merely to make it clear that the fact that I had not undertaken these consultations would not be a ground of challenge after an order was approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I believe that I divined his thinking correctly, and he has courteously confirmed it. He is in effect waterproofing a particular challenge. However, he has not defined—or divined—that the nature of his consultation may place some people in an impossible position.
The next heading is consultation. I am glad that the Secretary of State has not already taken the steps that he would claim under the clause. That is a good thing. He

says that the position will apply only to steps that he will take after an announcement and before and after Royal Assent. I shall deal with that aspect in two parts.
The Secretary of State's first consultation will he after the announcement of any particular area and perhaps before Royal Assent. That is what I might call postman's knock, part A. I presume that nearly everybody in the area will receive a "Dear Occupier" letter, which will spell out what is to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West pointed out that we do not know what questions will be put in that letter, whether a response is expected, as it is under the sales consultation procedure, whether the Secretary of State will provide any information and what will be the nature of that information, and whether he will provide any information about inducements and the advantages of a housing action trust—which he is likely to paint in glowing colours. Incidentally, he is good at painting things in glowing colours, but on canvas rather than in literature.
We do not know, either, whether there will be any buy-out offers. Anyone who is able to buy his home at much reduced prices might certainly wish to do so. The Walker proposal, if I may improperly call it that, was canvassed in the press two weeks ago, and I dare say that it could be incorporated in housing action trusts and in such a letter. We do not know what offers might be made that any sensible person could not refuse.
Knowing the Secretary of State as I do, having read about the Walker proposal, and given the fact that we know that the Prime Minister is very interested in housing action trusts—and her presence in the Chamber at 8 o'clock this morning to support her right hon. Friend was a partial indication of that fact—my suspicion is that he will produce a letter to which there may be objections.
I refer now to the retrospective element, which I fear is particularly dangerous. At that stage of the consultation, the Secretary of State is effectively the applicant, writing to every householder. He is also the informant, deciding how much information will be divulged. If there are any questions to be asked, he will choose their content and the way in which they will be put. He will also be the returning officer, as the recipient of the votes. He will be the teller and the decider, and he has the law on his side.
The Secretary of State can do all that without telling anybody. Unless the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and his hon. Friends vote against this provision, which they ought to do, it will become law, and we are told that it will then constitute a form of consultation approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. Skinner: With all those powers of judge, jury, executioner and everything else, it sounds as though the Secretary of State will be in a position parallel to that of a commissioner in the Common Market. I do not want to start my hon. Friend off on that tack, but is it not worth some examination?

Mr. Spearing: There may be some similarities—

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, or within the conventions of the House, for a Back-Bench Member to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, even in an intervention?

12 noon

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is nothing to do with the Chair where hon. Members decide to sit in the House.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not said in all the annals of the House of Commons that a Member of Parliament may sit on any Bench? I remember an occasion when the former leader of the SDP—he is now leader of the Provos, with an army of three—bustled his way past Opposition Members on the Bench below the Gangway and then nearly knocked over my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in an attempt to get to the Dispatch Box. He has never looked up since. I am leaving now.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is far more learned than I am and will have read all the annals to which he referred.

Mr. Spearing: You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall not be tempted towards Brussels and the Common Market, except to say that the centralisation in the Bill is markedly similar to the centralisation in that organisation.
The Secretary of State—I genuinely believe that sometimes he unwittingly deceives himself—has legiti-mised the consultation to such an extent that it is exactly how he wishes it. He now wants the House to say that whatever he does goes. Of course, he has some powers already, but this is an underhand way of doing it. The consultation may not be objective. Therefore, the response to the suggestion of housing action trusts may not be the same as would have been obtained had an objective assessment, not the letter from the Secretary of State, been put to each occupier.

Mr. McCartney: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister for Housing and Planning is back in the Chamber? Many of us have been here since 6.30 yesterday evening. Has the Minister been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Some of us are looking rather dishevelled, but the Minister looks smart. He has missed all the questions that we have been dying to ask him, but towards the end of this debate he has turned up with a smile on his face and wearing a clean shirt, tie and shoes.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask that question direct, but I think I know what is in his mind.
Will housing action trusts shoulder some of the duties of housing the homeless, apart from acting as contractors to the existing local authorities? I fear that they will not.
The "postman's knock" letter is only the first phase of the Secretary of State's consultation. We now come to what happens after Royal Assent. That consultation is covered in clause 59, which, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, regulates what housing action trusts can do once they are set up. But whatever the local gauleiter or his friends choose to do, the Secretary of State can direct otherwise. There is no obligation on housing action trusts to go along with what local people want, nor is there an obligation on the Secretary of State to comply with what the housing action trust wants. He can reverse its decision if he pleases, as I pointed out in my opening

remarks. The second phase of consultation that the Secretary of State so proudly unveiled will also be of no avail.
My penultimate point relates to hybridisation. I was rather shocked to hear that the Secretary of State agrees with my observation that there is a high probability that some HAT orders will be rendered hybrid in another place if petitions are laid against them. I emphasise that the Secretary of State's search for areas in which petitions will not be laid may be delaying the announcements.
It is possible that the other place, before or after the passing of an order, could restrict the Secretary of State in the exercise of his options. That might be welcomed by my hon. Friends and me, but it means that the scope and operation of HATs will not be those within the Bill. That affects the whole procedure of consultation.
My final point concerns planning. The Secretary of State said, in reply to a point that I made, "Oh no, planning will not be affected. I shall remain the umpire on the planning laws. All that will happen is that the HAT will take over the functions of the planning authority, and we shall then carry on as before." I hope that that was not too rapid a summary of the burden of his remarks.
Matters are not the same as before. First, the HAT may be too small to operate a proper planning organisation. A borough needs to be fairly big to have a full range of planning skills, which are highly legal and technical. It may get agents in to do the work, but there will be complications. Secondly, although the Secretary of State says, "I will be the umpire," that is not so. He has already made his own strategic plan for the royal docks area in London, and when a planning application comes up he can say that it does or does not lie within the plan that he, as Secretary of State, has already made. The Secretary of State will have powers which will not be assessable by local electors, and which will be exercised from Whitehall rather than from town halls.
All in all, we have here a remarkable multiplication of quangos which will not serve the people, but which will transfer ownership from local municipal organisations to those of other people. We do not know who those other people are. We can only guess that they will be friends of the Secretary of State and that they will be looking for some sort of pay-off.
The means by which all this will be achieved are wholly undemocratic, judged both by local democracy and by the procedures of the House. I call on my hon. Friends to support the amendments.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I commend amendment No. 87 to the House and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for speaking so eloquently, if briefly, on the issue of consultation before a housing action trust is established by the Government.
In my intervention on my hon. Friend's speech I asked the Minister and the Secretary of State if they would give an undertaking that they would not announce during the recess the location of the six HATs that they said would initially be set up. This is important. If the tenants are not to be consulted about the establishment of a HAT—and it will still be established if they are all against it—there should at least be some debate in the House about where they are and the likely effects on the areas in which they are declared. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will agree with me. We would like to know where the initial six HATs are to be located before


the Bill completes its stages in this place, so that we may have a debate at some length and of some significance on the subject. Even after the Bill becomes an Act and the Government decide to declare more HATs in addition to the original six, we would like an assurance from the Secretary of State and the Minister that such an announcement will be made in the House, so that those hon. Members whose constituents are affected and others who are interested can ask questions, receive assurances and discover information from the Government about the declarations and how the HATs will affect their constituents. We do not think that that is too much to ask. There is nothing in the legislation to guarantee that Parliament will be treated properly, that announcements will be made in this place and that we shall get a chance to debate them. I suspect that this is not an issue of too much controversy, and we should receive such an undertaking from the Secretary of State.
Conservative Members have probably purposely misunderstood what the amendments set out to achieve. At a later stage in our proceedings we shall debate what the Government call, "Pick a landlord" and what we call, "Pick a tenant" where a private organisation can ask to take over a council estate. In those circumstances, there will have to be a ballot and 51 per cent. of the people living on the estate must vote against the proposal or the estate will be taken over. We have criticised those arrangements. We believe that that voting system is undemocratic. With regard to the HAT—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The House will have an opportunity to consider that matter when we reach that point in the Bill.

Mr. Roberts: The point is that with regard to the HATs that we are debating now, there will not even be a chance for that kind of rigged voting. There is nothing in the legislation, as the Secretary of State admitted in an intervention, that requires any consultation with tenants of an area to be declared a housing action trust. We believe that that is completely unacceptable.
The Government claim that they are widening choice, that they are freeing tenants from the shackles of large-scale bureaucratic local authority housing management and that they will provide choice and freedom. However, that will not extend to allowing residents to decide whether they want a HAT imposed on them.
The reason why such a ballot will not be permitted is that most of the council tenants living on most of the estates likely to be selected as targets for housing action trusts would reject the idea of a HAT, if only from the belief that "The devil you know is better than the devil you do not," and that a bureaucratically imposed quango, peopled by the kind of people whom the Secretary of State traditionally appoints to his quangos, such as the development corporations, would be worse at running the affairs of tenants than the local authority. At least the tenants can vote in local elections against the actions of their local authority councillors.
We think that it is because tenants would reject the idea of HATs being imposed on them, particularly as they will not be given the representation that they need on the HAT to manage, control and run their own affairs, that the Government are refusing to accept our amendments,

which implement the Conservative manifesto commitment to consult tenants, which the Conservatives claim is their mandate from the last general election.
We believe that the Government's response so far is completely inadequate. The response is totalitarian and it imposes undemocratically elected quangos on council estates which the Government choose to designate without consultation with the local authorities or tenants and residents of the estate. We believe that if the Government or Conservative Back Benchers really believe in choice, consultation and freedom in housing, they should support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 227.

Division No. 355]
[12.14 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Alton, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barron, Kevin
John, Brynmor


Battle, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bell, Stuart
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Kirkwood, Archy


Blair, Tony
Lamond, James


Blunkett, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Bradley, Keith
Litherland, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McAllion, John


Buchan, Norman
McCartney, Ian


Buckley, George J.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Caborn, Richard
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McNamara, Kevin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McTaggart, Bob


Clay, Bob
Madden, Max


Clelland, David
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martlew, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Maxton, John


Crowther, Stan
Meale, Alan


Cummings, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dalyell, Tarn
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dewar, Donald
Morgan, Rhodri


Dixon, Don
Mullin, Chris


Doran, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Douglas, Dick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Brien, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Pendry, Tom


Fearn, Ronald
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Radice, Giles


Galbraith, Sam
Redmond, Martin


Galloway, George
Reid, Dr John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Richardson, Jo


George, Bruce
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rooker, Jeff


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ruddock, Joan


Gould, Bryan
Salmond, Alex


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Short, Clare


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel






Steel, Rt Hon David
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wray, Jimmy


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
 Mr. Allen Adams.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alexander, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Amess, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Franks, Cecil


Arbuthnot, James
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gardiner, George


Ashby, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Goodlad, Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.
Gow, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boswell, Tim
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowis, John
Hannam, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Brazier, Julian
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Holt, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Cran, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael





Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Maclean, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mans, Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shersby, Michael


Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitney, Ray


Price, Sir David
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wilshire, David


Redwood, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Rowe, Andrew
 Mr. Kenneth Carlisle


Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 87, in page 41, line 20, at end insert—

'(4) If, as a result of consultation under this section, it appears to the Secretary of State that a majority of persons consulted under subsection (2) above are opposed to the designation of the proposed designated area, he shall not make an order under section 55 above designating the said area.'.—[Mr. Allan Roberts.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 219.

Division No. 356]
[12.28 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Hilary
Buchan, Norman


Ashdown, Paddy
Buckley, George J.


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Crowther, Stan


Blair, Tony
Cryer, Bob


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr John






Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dixon, Don
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Doran, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
O'Brien, William


Fearn, Ronald
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Flynn, Paul
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Primarolo, Dawn


Galloway, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redmond, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Hardy, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Salmond, Alex


Haynes, Frank
Short, Clare


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Straw, Jack


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lamond, James
Turner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAllion, John
Wilson, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Macdonald, Calum A.
Worthington, Tony


McKelvey, William
Wray, Jimmy


McNamara, Kevin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McTaggart, Bob



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Allen Adams and Mr. Frank Cook.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Maxton. John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carttiss, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cash, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Chope, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Churchill, Mr


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bowis, John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Conway, Derek





Critchley, Julian
Lord, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marland, Paul


Dunn, Bob
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Durant, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Mates, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evennett, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fallon, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Mellor, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mills, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gardiner, George
Morrison, Sir Charles


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Gorst, John
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gregory, Conal
Patnick, Irvine


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grist, Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Price, Sir David


Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Haselhurst, Alan
Riddick, Graham


Hawkins, Christopher
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rowe, Andrew


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hind, Kenneth
Ryder, Richard


Holt, Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Speller, Tony


Irvine, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Jack, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Kilfedder, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knapman, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Tracey, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Trippier, David


Knowles, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Latham, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lilley, Peter
Ward, John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Warren, Kenneth






Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Ray



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 5

HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS: CONSTITUTION

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 328, in page 87, line 30, leave out 'people having' and insert
'persons who live in or have'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 329, amendment No. 91, in page 87, line 31, at end insert
'and a majority of the members of a trust shall be resident in the designated area'.
and Government amendment No. 330.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will agree that these amendments carry out a commitment that we gave in Committee following prolonged discussion about the importance and desirability of securing the services on HAT boards of people who really know the areas in question. The amendments mean that the Secretary of State would have to have regard to the desirability of securing the services of people who live in the HAT areas as well as those who have special knowledge of them. We also agreed to consult local authorities about the appointments. I think that these are welcome improvements to the Bill in line with what we discussed in Committee.
Amendment No. 91 is too restrictive because the temporary bodies will have a difficult task to carry out in a short time. The Secretary of State will need to find the best people with the relevant expertise, and he might not necessarily be able to do that with a majority of residents in every case. Qualities such as management skills and housing expertise and experience will also be relevant.
We intend to ask the HATs to create, in consultation with local people, non-statutory tenants' advisory fora that will provide a focus for generating tenants' views beyond representation on the HAT boards and other consultative arrangements. The fora would have a remit to advise the boards on any issue of concern to the tenants. We hope that some tenants will take over the running of their properties through the establishment of tenant co-operatives.
Amendment No. 330 seeks to ensure that anyone with an interest that might be prejudicial should not be appointed to a HAT board. At the same time, we wish to ensure that being a tenant should not be regarded as having a prejudicial interest. That point was legitimately raised by a number of Opposition Members in Committee.
I hope that Opposition Members will agree that amendments Nos. 328 to 330 are sensible and meet the points that they raised in Committee. Although we must reject amendment No. 91, I hope that they accept that we have gone some way towards meeting their concerns.

Mr. Cryer: I want to say a few brief words about the proposals. The Government's rejection of amendment No.

91 is singularly unfortunate. As the Minister accepted, the Government's wording is more discretionary than amendment No. 91. As amended by amendment No. 328, the schedule would read;
In appointing members of a trust, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of securing the services of persons who live in or have special knowledge of the locality in which the designated area is situated.
Our amendment requires that
a majority of the members of a trust shall be resident in the designated area.
We have advanced the arguments on previous occasions, but this is the place to reduce, modify or qualify the Secretary of State's powers.
The schedule states that
the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability".
That is not an imposition on the Secretary of State; he only has to consider alternatives. Having considered people living in the area, if they do not satisfy his criteria he can reject them. That rejection could be for a variety of reasons —for example, he may oppose them politically or he may have had an argument with them. He may think them to be brash or quiet and, therefore, the wrong people to serve on the boards. We know that the Secretary of State is likely to have arguments with people every time that he goes into an area. That has happened on more than one or two occasions. I believe that, more than anything else, if the Secretary of State suspects that anyone is politically opposed to him—and he would not have to be a Labour supporter, but simply a critic of Government policy—he will use his highly discretionary powers not to appoint that person.
12.45 pm
One of the grounds that we can put forward to support this argument is the way in which the Government have treated other quangos. In all those bodies that we use to administer the various institutions in our national life, the Government have been assiduous in sacking people whom they regard as having been critical in any way and appointing people who conform to their own point of view.

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman is still the European Member of Parliament for Sheffield. I recollect that, when the Government nominated Councillor Roy Thwaites, the then leader of South Yorkshire county council, to the chairmanship of the South Yorkshire residuary body, he at first accepted the position, but subsequently declined. How does that square with your thinking?

Mr. Cryer: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; he is referring to me.

Mr. Patnick: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman can have two stripes for that one.

Mr. Cryer: I shall simply use an old phrase and say, "Grovel, grovel, grovel."
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government appointed Mr. Roy Thwaites who was subsequently persuaded to resign. Of course, there are occasions which tend to prove the rule. The Government occasionally pick out members of the Labour party to make a particular body appear more acceptable, and I believe that that was the case on that occasion. However, we are talking about the majority of people who will not be prominent and who will simply be carrying out day-to-day administration. In


those circumstances, the predominant qualification should be that they live in the area, as stipulated in our amendment.

Mr. Patnick: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his courtesy. How does he explain the fact that Lord Mulley, a former Member of Parliament for Sheffield and Minister in the Labour Government, has been appointed deputy chairman of the Sheffield urban development corporation?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bearing out exactly what I said: that the Government persuade people who have been prominent in the Labour party in the past to chair or act as deputy chair to a body for which they wish to gain acceptance and credibility in an area. One of the reasons why the Government appointed Fred Mulley was that they knew perfectly well that the Labour-controlled Sheffield council was unhappy about the proposal in the first place. This is part of the reconciliation. The Government have the power to ride roughshod over democratically elected local councils, and they attempt to put a better face on it by appointing someone who, although he does not live in the area, nevertheless knows it. Roy Thwaites lives in the area. Both the people concerned have local knowledge and understanding which is precisely why the Government appointed them, in addition to the political connotations that I have mentioned. When people go down to the other end of the Palace of Westminster, some funny things happen to them.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend referred to the question of public and political appointees in terms of offering a job to a member of the Opposition. Perhaps I can give him a classic example from south Yorkshire. My local area health authority has sacked a Socialist chairman who has done a sterling job during the many years since reorganisation in 1974. The job has been offered to the leader of the Labour council in the knowledge that, given that one Labour member had been dismissed, another could not accept the nomination. A member of the Conservative party was then appointed. He happens to be one of my constituents. He was put into a job that he knew that the Labour party had to turn down because of the dismissal.

Mr. Cryer: That is a good illustration of what I was describing. It demonstrates why we want a qualification different from the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. Area health boards provide good examples. A member of the Labour party was chairman of the Airedale health authority. He was so moderate as to be almost untrue. He tried his best to reconcile all the difficulties and to meet the pressure from the Government while maintaining services. He tried to compromise as best he could in the decent way in which he was accustomed to act, yet he was sacked by the Government, who then appointed a Tory.

Mr. Patnick: rose—

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) wishes me to give way to him again, and I am pleased to do so.

Mr. Patnick: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I notice that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is sitting complacently on the Opposition Front Bench. His former

leader, Sir Jack Smart, was given the chairmanship of Wakefield health authority. We can carry on trading such things across the Chamber, if that is what the hon. Gentleman wishes—

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Patnick: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am intervening in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is sitting in the opposite corner. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene in his hon. Friend's speech, I am sure that he can.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South changes his ground. He began by saying "no person" but now everything is different.

Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Member for Hallam examines Hansard, he will find that I have made a carefully balanced case, as is always my desire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is not sitting complacently on the Front Bench. He is sitting, as he usually does, with a sharp eye, taking an interest in this matter, hour after hour to his great credit. He has long experience and expertise in local government affairs and we are grateful that he is here today to give us the benefit of his knowledge and application in this matter.

Mr. William O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Patnick: rose—

Mr. Cryer: No; I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for the opportunity to explain the situation that was outlined by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). Sir Jack Smart is chairman of the Wakefield area health authority, but that authority is in tremendous difficulty because it is having to bow to pressures from Ministers. Because Sir Jack will not accept those pressures, we are to have an inquiry into the operation of the health authority. We are asking for a n independent inquiry. That is the measure of it. I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that that is exactly the result that will come about unless we get the right balance in appointments to the trusts. I hope that my hon. Friend will dwell further on that issue because it is important and we must highlight it. We must convince the hon. Member for Hallam about how wrong he is on such issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has spent sufficient time discussing the Health Service and appointments of chairmen. We should now get back to housing action trusts.

Mr. Cryer: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been helpful in assuring us that the House retains a balance in these discussions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has illustrated the point that I was making: that the Secretary of State should not have the absolute powers that he is given in the legislation because, when a Secretary of State in a Conservative Government is given such absolute powers in areas where there can be specific qualifications, to which I shall turn in a moment, he must have regard to vague generalities. He will usually appoint a majority of Conservatives to a board, possibly with a Labour


figurehead to give a fake appearance of balance. That causes difficulties, and the circumstances that my hon. Friend has described have illustrated those difficulties which, when all is said and done, have not helped the Health Service. If the Secretary of State for the Environment appoints in like spirit, it will not help the administration of the housing action trusts.
Although we are opposed to housing action trusts, we are putting forward proposals to improve the legislation. There is always a grey area for an Opposition: do they simply oppose legislation tooth and nail and vote against every Government amendment—the large number of amendments to the Bill show how badly drafted it is—or do they say that they are opposed to the legislation but will try to improve it? In a spirit of constructive opposition, the Labour party is doing the latter. We are putting forward a constructive amendment to curb the powers of the Secretary of State. We are saying not that he should choose people in a political ballot—we know that he would not do that anyway—but that the majority of members of a trust shall be resident in the designated area. The Minister said that there may not be enough talented and able people to participate in a trust. I should have thought that there would be a body of people dealing with the trust's affairs—to which the Minister has not yet made us all privy—with the knowledge, gained from experience, to ensure that the trust operated to the benefit of those living in the area. By and large, it is a truism that the people who live in an area have their own interests at heart and want the area developed for those interests. People who come to the area do not have quite the same vested interests and desires.
I wonder whether the Department of the Environment would have had so many disasters on its hands in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was busy peddling tower blocks through grant aid, if the architects who designed them and the civil servants who promoted them had had to live on the top floor with a family for a minimum of five years after completion. I should have thought it salutary for an architect to have to explain all his plans and drawings to the community and then say that he will live there to share the experience. If that had been a criterion, there would not have been so many tower blocks foisted on local authorities by grant aid. Local authorities are even more hard pressed than those in the past.
Tower blocks have not been a success. This is due in part to the fact that there was no shared experience between the architects who promoted them and the civil servants in the Department of the Environment who were busy promoting them. We are now facing the whirlwind of that ill-judged planning debacle. The Department of the Environment must now fork out money—not enough—to get the tower blocks out of the way so that the kind of houses that people want can be built.
By and large, people were not consulted about the development of the tower blocks. They were not given the right of democratic participation, except through local elections, which avenue, although unsatisfactory, was better than the Government's proposals. This fact points once again to the desirability of a majority of members of a trust being resident in the designated area. I do not know what the SLD will say about the amendments; I suppose

the policy of the moment will depend on which Member is in the House. Certainly the Labour Opposition put this forward as a basic, common sense policy.
1 pm
There has been a reference to lush villages in the stockbroker belt in Surrey which have a high Conservative voting turnout. If we proposed that a quango should take over the running of such a village, would the Government suggest that a group of people from, say, Lambeth should run parts of Esher? Of course not. They would say that there are a lot of chaps and chapesses there who can run their own affairs. The proposal that the Secretary of State should appoint people resident in the designated area as a majority of the trust has much to commend it. It does not take away the right of appointment; it modifies it to ensure that the Secretary of State takes note of the interests of the people who are vitally concerned in the housing action trust. That would be better than the political manipulation which we have seen by the Government in so many parts of life which they have atrophied by the application of misleading and misguided policies.
The first part of amendment No. 330 would provide:
Before appointing a person to be a member of a trust the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that that person will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of his functions as a member; and the Secretary of State may require a person whom he proposes to appoint to give him such information as he considers necessary for that purpose.
The second part does not affect people who are likely to become tenants. In the same way as I gave a parallel to amendment No. 91 by saying that residents in the designated area are more likely to have the interests of their own area at heart than even well-meaning people from outside, I think that amendment No. 330 is useful. The Government should use that philosophy more widely when drafting, for example, legislation on company law.
As a side issue, let me refer to the appointment of Peter Luff as an adviser in the Department of Trade and Industry. He was employed by Good Relations, which is part of the Luff group which is being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry. Under the criteria in amendment No. 330, the Secretary of State could not have appointed him.
Having criticised the Government, I accept that after constructive pressure from my hon. Friends in Committee the Government have proposed an amendment which will make a useful addition to the Bill. Even though it is muddied patchwork, and even though we are opposed to it in principle, it demonstrates, as we have been demonstrating all through the night, that the Labour Opposition are trying to be constructive when the Government are trampling on the rights of Parliament by trying to push this legislation through the House. The hours of debate show how the Labour party is standing up for the rights of ordinary tenants against housing action trusts by putting forward modest, minor amendments to improve the legislation.
We are bitterly disappointed by the Government's unwillingness to accept amendment No. 91. It was tabled in a spirit of helpfulness, yet the Minister spent only two minutes in dismissing it—I thought somewhat contemptuously. I regret that some of the arrogance of the toff who is the Secretary of State is rubbing off on the Minister of


State. It is alarming that that should happen; perhaps it is a fungus that is spreading throughout the Department. If that is the case, it ought to get in a few fungicides.
The Secretary of State's response was unsatisfactory, and failed to rebut adequately the proposals in amendment No. 91. I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote for that amendment, but, again in a spirit of helpfulness, I say that it would be a mistake to vote against amendment No. 330, which would give some modest assistance in what is otherwise a terrible imposition upon tenants and local authorities alike. That attitude reflects the work we have been trying to do through the night to improve the muddy mess that the Government have presented.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I am delighted to make a contribution to this debate, and believe that hon. Members should address their minds to a vexing problem of green belt protection confronting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I introduce the topic for a particular reason. We wish to regenerate a number of urban areas. There is much dormant and under-utilised land—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is debating means and methods of making appointments to housing action trusts. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from that subject.

Mr. Dickens: The establishment of trusts will enable the regeneration of urban areas and re-utilisation of dormant land, which in most cases is in public ownership. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of acres of under-utilised land there are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is debating not the functions of the trusts but appointments to them.

Mr. Dickens: We must make the right appointments, selecting people who will appreciate the value of our objective, and who will co-operate with the Government. It will be unsatisfactory if people are appointed who are not prepared to do that which the Government wish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. It matters not of whatever political persuasion that Government might be, given that such is the will of the nation, as would be this measure if it is passed by the House. If the right appointments are not made, additional pressures will be placed on the green belt.
Hon. Members should remind themselves of the trust's framework. It will use public and private resources in renovating an estate and providing tenants with a better housing environment. That is an obligation placed on those appointed. The Secretary of State will be asked to ensure that there is tenant representation and that local authorities will be consulted about the appointment of local residents or others having special local knowledge. The trust will also have a duty to co-operate with the local authority in respect of its responsibilities towards the homeless. Once the trust has completed its task, it will transfer its housing stock to other landlords, who must be approved by the Housing Corporation. Any tenant who wishes to return to a local authority when the work of a housing action trust is complete will be able to do so, provided the local authority is willing.
Council housing will be transferred from the local authority and managed by a trust established by the Secretary of State. This is the Government's effort to regenerate the nation's worst council estates, and it is important to appoint like-minded and sensible people of

whatever political persuasion. The Government are trying to help the people. They are trying to save the green belt, and this is an important way of doing it.

Mr. Lofthouse: Our amendment seeks an assurance that the majority of members of a housing action trust will be local residents. I should have thought that any Government and any fair-minded person would be only too willing to ensure that local people were active and well-represented on those boards. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Government's objection to the idea. When all is said and clone, the Secretary of State would still have powers to select the chairman, vice-chairman and up to five other board members.
This move is another step towards fulfilling the Government's desire to wipe out democratically elected local authorities or at least major parts of their duties. It is a retrograde step. The people who live in those areas should have an avenue of complaint to board members. With local authorities, people have an avenue—mostly to their elected members—at least to let off steam. That avenue will not exist if the boards are run by people selected by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would at least ensure a majority of local people on the boards.
The boards will affect many people's lives, but there will be few avenues for representations by those people. We have all had experience of water boards and area health authorities. Even Members of Parliament have difficulty making representations to those people. The press is not allowed to report board meetings. There is no information and no avenue of representation for the public. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will consider accepting our modest amendment.
I have had some bad experiences with my local health authority. I have been unable to obtain information that the public requires, and we have been unable to make proper representations to try to stop savage cuts in our health services. Were the health authority composed of elected members it would be much more responsive to the public. Recently in my constituency I have had experience of a charitable trust—I do not yet know who appoints its members—that gives very little information—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I allowed the debate to continue along those lines, it would create infinite possibilities, and I cannot do it. We must return to the appointment of members of housing action trusts.

Mr. Lofthouse: I was comparing my experience of those boards with what will undoubtedly happen with the housing action trusts, but I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a worthwhile exercise to examine boards that have been set up in a similar way to those suggested boards. We can make our case only by comparison with such similar boards.
1.15 pm
In my constituency there is the alms houses charity trust. Great concern has been expressed about the allocation of the alms houses, and there is no avenue for people to get information about, for example, how the tenancies are let. Similarly, under the Bill, these boards will be administered and people will carry out substantial duties, which will affect many lives, and unless a majority of people residing in the area—or at least people whom those in the area know—are represented, there will be


problems. We are all aware, particularly if we reside in our constituencies, that people know their Member of Parliament and can approach him. That is a safety valve, which will not exist in this scheme unless there is local representation. We are going down a dangerous path. We are taking away democratically elected members and we are taking away duties from elected local authorities and giving them to these boards.
For the life of me, I cannot believe that any fair-minded person would not want these boards to be manned by local representatives. I hope that the Secretary of State will not select the representatives on these boards purely because of their political persuasions. The track record of bodies made up of those appointed by Government shows that they are politically biased, and anyone who suggests otherwise is not being honest. We all know that that is the case. What guarantee is there, even if this amendment is accepted, that the boards will not be staffed solely by politically motivated people? We heard reference earlier to the Wakefield area health authority. I have nothing to say about that, because it is not in my area, but I have something to say about the Pontefract area health authority, which is 100 per cent. staffed by political appointees. As a result, the policies of this Government have been carried out slavishly in that health authority.
The dangers are there, and I hope that, if the Government want to show that they are fair and honest and believe in their policies, they will at least accept an amendment that is just and fair and would be for the benefit of the local people.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not intend to make a long speech, but one or two points must be made, not least because amendment No. 91 is infinitely the best of the four amendments before us. Over the past three or four years, Ministers have delivered diatribes against local authorities for not going far enough in divesting responsibility to their tenants. Comments have been made about "aldermen tortoises", and the Minister has boasted that power would be transferred to the tenants. Therefore, logic and consistency would require the Government to view amendment No. 91 as favourably as we do.
One or two aspects of the other amendments cause me grave concern partly because over recent years the Government have shown that they believe that the first qualification for anyone to be appointed to any position is for that person to be "one of us". However, the people from among the Government's ranks and their political supporters have frequently shown their unsuitability.
The record of public appointments over the past five or six years is full of examples of people appointed to positions, perhaps because the Government assumed that they had special knowledge, but whose performance has been somewhat less than successful. I base my anxiety on my constituency experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is aware that there is an industrial estate in part of my constituency that is close to his constituency. I saw an opportunity for a substantial number of jobs to be created there. We sought the support of the Department of Trade and Industry, but the Secretary of State refused it. After pressure from me he referred the matter to his advisory committee for the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Those gifted people with special knowledge who enjoyed the Government's

support recommended that the support should not be given because that would not be in the interests of the region or the community. At that time we had the highest unemployment level in England.
I made inquiries about the advisory committee consisting of people appointed by the Secretary of State. When I looked at a list of the members I discovered that a substantial proportion of them did not live in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. They may have had special knowledge, which will be retained despite Government amendment No. 328. I am more concerned that people who live in the area and who understand the reality of the area should be appointed. I would much prefer the Minister to accept amendment No. 91 which would ensure that the majority of the members of the trust live in the area than that he should appoint people whom he believes possess special knowledge. The kind of knowledge which the Secretary of State might consider to be special may not necessarily confer an ability on those people to give advice on the management of housing.
I was also somewhat surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) being rather more kindly disposed towards amendment No. 330. The amendment contains a reference to
no financial or other interest.
That is
no financial or other interest
that the Government or the Secretary of State might imagine would disqualify the individual from service on the trusts. The Government take a rather more relaxed view of profit and of the principle of motivation of service than many hon. Members.
Although the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) took a fairly generous view of the Government's position, he had the audacity to say that he was concerned and wanted appointments to reflect the concern about the green belt. We have seen the Secretary of State for the Environment overturn inspectors' recommendations about the protection of the green belt. We have seen a larger assault on the green belt under this Administration than under any Government since green belts were protected. We are therefore entitled to maintain—

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is aware that he cannot substantiate that claim. There is now twice as much confirmed green belt as there was when the Labour party left office.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can now see the wisdom of my reproach directed to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). It appears that there may be an attempt to have a debate on the green belt. We cannot have that and I hope that we shall return to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted by your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I certainly did not wish to see the debate extended. We can pursue the Minister's point on some other occasion. It is not appropriate to do so now, except to say that several of us, not necessarily on these Benches, are deeply worried about the quality of the advice which the Secretary of State seems most disposed to take. The wisdom of that advice hardly suggests that the Secretary of State is the best judge of a special knowledge or a financial disqualification. Indeed, he is probably the worst judge.

Mr. Barron: I thought that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) was willing to accept amendment No. 91 providing that the local people, who would be a majority on the housing trust board, did what the Government wanted them to do. Did my hon. Friend also get that impression?

Mr. Hardy: Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just as I have grave doubts about the Secretary of State's capacity to perceive a special knowledge and a disqualification, so I have grave doubts about the meaningful nature of any consultation on which the Secretary of State may embark with each local housing authority whose district is included in the designated area covered by amendment No. 329. I can imagine what sort of consultation will be carried out. Let us suppose that of three housing authorities serving a designated area, two are good Labour authorities and one a poor Conservative authority. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) may laugh. He may be surprised to hear that there are Conservative authorities in areas where housing trusts would be designated, but there must be some and it would be reasonable to suggest that they would not be good. If the Secretary of State complied with his obligation to consult those three authorities, I know to which he would be most eager to pay attention, and it would not be the good ones.
Heaven knows why the Government have to get themselves into the difficulty which their amendments will create. They will land themselves in trouble because the special knowledge will be criticised and the people whom they appoint will not necessarily enjoy public confidence. The record suggests that probably they will not. They will get into trouble when they take a lighter view of financial disqualifications. It would be simpler and easier for the Government—I think that some Ministers shared this view when these matters were being considered—to accept amendment No. 91 instead of the foolish amendments which they are tying around their neck.
I urge the Minister at least to recognise that a voice or two may be raised in the other place in favour of amendment No. 91 and that amendments Nos. 328 to 330 risk pitfalls and embarrassment, and will engender anxiety, if not condemnation.

Mr. Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the Government's excellent record on making appointments to such bodies and the sanctions available? Many people whose performance is in question have short extensions to see whether their performance will improve and after a short term they are replaced. People of all political persuasions are appointed to these bodies and the Government look first and foremost at their performance in a job, which is important. The hon. Gentleman forgets that. It must be because of the frustrations of being in opposition for so long.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not respond at length to the hon. Gentleman except to say that he is already in deep trouble. If we were not short of time I would raise a point of order about the excessive domination of an individual in this Chamber—[Interruption.]

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government Chief Whip to intimidate innocent, humble, Back Benchers in such a threatening, offensive and brazen way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I merely saw two hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches having a conversation. I regret the fact that several conversations seem to be taking place simultaneously.

Mr. Hardy: Just as I was about to respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, the Government's disciplinarian went to talk to him and made it impossible for me to fulfil the normal courtesies of the House.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth appears to believe that all Government appointments are successful except for those few instances when failure leads to dismissal—no one objects to the dismissal of those who demonstrate their incapacity. If the hon. Gentleman analyses those who enjoy Government support and preferment, he will discover—he should have perceived it, because, unlike most of his colleagues, he is a north country Member—that a disproportionate number of Government appointees come from the south of England.
Housing illustrates the weakness of the Conservative attitude. I recall how in the 1970s the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Tony Crosland, appointed an individual to be the chief housing adviser who had served in the Rotherham area and who was a Geordie with considerable experience of the north-east. That appointment was regarded as an astonishing step for a Secretary of State to take in the southern half of England. The same could be said about the recognition of merit. Those who work in the City of London are much more likely to receive recognition than those who are 200 miles further north. If anyone 200 miles further north receives recognition, that demonstrates that he is especially outstanding. I shall not pursue that matter any further, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley understands the reference I have made.
I commend amendment No. 91. I suggest that it is in tune with the various public pronouncements that have been made by the Minister in the past 12 months. Certainly the amendment is consistent with the remarks that have been made by those who held the ministerial office before him. It would remove future embarrassment for the Government and would enable tenants to understand that the Government have given them some consideration. Given that the Government are supposed to be opposed to quangos, the amendment would demonstrate that the Government were not seeking to create more jobs for the boys.

Mr. Soley: The Minister was correct in saying that the amendments are the result of concessions made to the Opposition in Committee. We were worried that the housing action trusts would confer considerable powers and potential economic benefits on the people who serve on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was correct to say that Government amendment No. 330 is useful. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is worried that that amendment is not strong enough, basically it addresses our fears about estate agents or other such


people serving on housing action trusts. That would be undesirable. I accept that the Government's amendments are helpful, and I welcome them.
Amendment No. 91 is important for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friends. Our objection to so much of this Bill is that the Government have used and abused the concept of democracy as they think fit in its various parts. One clause allows dead people to vote so that their vote is counted in favour of a private landlord taking over a council housing area. The Government are allowing empty properties to be counted as yes votes, but, by rejecting amendment No. 91, they are saying that they will not allow a majority of local residents to be on the HAT board. They are taking away the powers of the local authority. The HATs will take away not only the housing powers of local authorities but their planning powers and a wide range of other powers—removing them from the elected representatives of the people, so that the ordinary person in the street can no longer turn to the council to complain about planning issues or housing matters; he or she will have to go to the housing action trust.
Housing action trusts will be appointed; they will not be representative. If they do not have a majority of local people on their boards, we can only assume that at best they will constitute benign, benevolent dictatorships that decide what is best for the people, having listened to them first. If that works well, we shall be lucky. If it works badly, we could end up with the sort of misjudgments and mistakes that were widely made in the 1950s and 1960s, with some of the inappropriate high-rise buildings that went up then. We offer this warning to the Government.
We accept that we have had useful concessions from the Government. I suggest to my hon. Friends that we should not vote on amendment No. 91, not because it is not useful but because we have debated this matter in considerable detail. Other important matters are coming up for discussion and I want to focus the House's attention on them.

Mr. Michael Welsh: As planning will be taken over by the HATs, will they take over building control, too?

Mr. Soley: As I understand it, they will have full powers over planning, which will include certain aspects of building control—although, if my memory serves me aright, some of these areas do not necessarily come under local authority control now. However, I think that some aspects would fall under HAT control and others would not. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that.
It is possible for HATs to build parks or turn other areas into parks. They have significant powers, but we should move on to some of the following groups of amendments. I shall not press amendment No. 91 to a vote. I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have tabled in response to our requests, but this debate has served to show that the proposals are an abuse of the democratic process and that the Government have not thought through the consequence of legislating for the people of an area and removing their democratic right to a voice in it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 329, in page 87, line 31, at end add

'and before appointing any such person as a member he shall consult every local housing authority any part of whose district is included in the designated area'.

No. 330, in page 87, line 31, at end add—
'(1A) Before appointing a person to be a member of a trust the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that that person will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of his functions as a member; and the Secretary of State may require a person whom he proposes to appoint to give him such information as he considers necessary for that purpose.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 89, line 2, at end insert
'subject to paragraph 13A below and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 89, line 4, at end insert
'13A. In section 100J(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, after "authority", there shall be inserted the following—
and any reference to a principal council in sections 100A, 100B(1) in its provisions for the agenda of a meeting, 100B(3) and 100E in its application of sections 100A, 100B(1) and 100(3) includes a reference to a housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988"'.'.

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is not in his place. He may have been caught napping as the debate has proceeded through the night and into the morning, but he put his name to our amendments because they extend the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to housing action trusts. The hon. Gentleman sponsored a private Member's Bill that became law with the support of the Government, and it dealt with access to information as it affects local authorities. So it would be logical, given the all-party campaign on freedom of information in local government, to extend the provisions of the access to information legislation to HATs. What is good for the local authority goose should be good for the housing action trust gander. The hon. Member for Hornchurch believes that, and so do I. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was one of the major sponsors of the campaign for freedom of information and the trio consisted of myself, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. We have all-party support for freedom of information and access to information.
It is important that people, the press and the media generally should have access to organisations such as the housing action trusts which govern the everyday lives of people. It was quite wrong for committees of local authorities to be able to go into secret session when discussing matters that were not official or state secrets, or did not involve the letting of contracts or commercial interests. All those things have been allowed for in the freedom of information legislation. Contractual or personal matters or the problems of an employee of a local authority, in this case the HAT, can be debated in camera.
As well as the desire to provide freedom of information, there is also a desire to safeguard the privacy of people and commercial requirements when going out to tender. Measures are necessary to protect the interests of the local authority and the housing action trust. It is right that local authority committees should be open to the public and the press, that the minutes should be available and that notice of when committee meetings are to take place should be


published. That enables the media and constituents and residents to know about the meetings. If it is right to apply such rules to local authority committees, surely they should be applied to the housing action trusts.
As I have said, this is a non-political all-party approach to freedom of information. The Government support access to information in local government and such access should apply to the housing action trusts. A housing action trust is not an elected body, but an appointed quango that will govern a housing estate and its residents, who were previously governed by people who were directly elected. Because the people running the housing action trusts are not directly elected by the people being governed, we need this freedom of information and access to information legislation even more than we need it for local authorities.
In the debate on previous amendments, the Government refused to consult residents before an area is declared to be under the control of a housing action trust. They refused not to declare it a housing action trust area if the residents were opposed to that, and they are about to refuse residents the right to have majority representation on the housing action trust. After all that, they surely will not want to deny the residents the right to know what the trusts are doing and talking about. It is the residents that the trusts will discuss and the residents or their representatives want to be able to go and observe at meetings of housing action trusts. They want to see the agenda in advance so that residents' associations can make representations to the members of the trust about what is to be discussed.
If residents are to consult, participate or involve themselves in the activities of the housing action trusts, it is essential that the access to information and freedom of information legislation enshrined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 be applied to the housing action trusts. We are not asking the Government for anything that is particularly political. It is not political dynamite and does not divide the political parties. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at these two amendments. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hornchurch is not here to contribute to the debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman strongly supports freedom of and access to information not only for local government but all organisations. We do not want HATs to become like water authorities—meeting in secret, suspected by everyone and keeping the people whom they are there to serve in the dark.
If the Government do not support the idea of applying the freedom of information legislation to HATs when they were so enthusiastic about its application to local authorities, one will begin to suspect their motives. The Government did not mind any machinery being used to criticise, attack and make things difficult for local authorities. They thought that the access to information legislation would do that rather than support residents', tenants' and consumers' rights. If they do not accept that the freedom of access to information legislation should apply to HATs, their motives will be open to suspicion.

Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment when he realises that we are not quite as far apart as he thinks.
The amendments do not wholly apply the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to HATs but reasonably seek to pick out the parts that are applicable to them. The amendments recognise that we should consider the structure of HATs and how access to them can be made to work.
In Committee we discussed in detail how HATs will be accountable through the House to the Secretary of State. They will be controlled through the corporate planning system and will have to submit annual reports to Parliament. We are about to discuss an amendment that was promised in Committee to allow the National Audit Office access to HATs so that the financial and ultimate accountabilities of the House are clear.
We have been discussing how to build in provisions to make HATs responsive to tenants' needs. I accept the argument advanced by the lion. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) that tenants cannot take part in HATs unless they have reasonable access to information and what is going on. We have reconsidered this matter and in Manchester I made an announcement, which was generally welcomed, that the Secretary of State will use his powers of direction to require HATs to hold their meetings in public. The hon. Gentleman said that water authorities in England do not meet in public, but HATs will be different in that respect. I am sure that the HATs' boards will only profit from that. They will have to be extremely close to tenants if they are to succeed in their tasks.
The amendments would cover committees and sub-committees as well as boards and would specifically require all meetings, except those exempted under schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, to be open and for agendas and papers to be available for inspection. As we do not have a picture of the best organisational structure for a HAT, it is premature to decide whether the detailed provisions of that Act are the best way forward.
The Secretary of State's directions to HATs for their meetings will cover the circumstances in which HATs may decide to hold their meetings in private. A local authority planning committee may want to discuss in private confidential commercial material or individual matters to do with a tenant. Obviously a local authority will want to protect the interests of the tenant, so we shall set out the circumstances in which we think it proper for a HAT to meet in private. In general, FIAT board meetings should be held in public. We shall look closely at the provisions of schedule 12A to the 1972 Act to see how they may best be applied to HATs when we have decided their structure. It would be silly to apply detailed requirements that would not fit with what happens on the ground.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle will accept that we have taken steps in the direction that he wants and will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. Allan Roberts: It is a refreshing change to have a response from the Minister that satisfies virtually everything that the Opposition have requested. Although we have been dissatisfied with the Minister's consultation arguments, it appears that, in this case, the Government have accepted our arguments and come forward with a suitable amendment.
In the light of the Minister's comments that access to information legislation will, in effect, be applied to HATs and that they will meet in public and be open to the press


and the media, and as about 98 per cent. of our other requests appear to have been met, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6

HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS: FINANCE ETC.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 331, in page 93, line 5, at end insert—
'(5) Section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (which enables the Comptroller and Auditor General to conduct examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which certain departments, authorities and bodies have used their resources) shall apply to a trust.'.
Again, this amendment was requested by the Committee, which quite properly said that the National Audit Office should have access to HATs to carry out value-for-money audits.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We welcome the Government's concession and are pleased that the National Audit Office will report on the HATs. It is a valuable organisation—it has, for example, just published a report on the Liverpool Docklands corporation. That excellent report highlights many of the shortcomings in the corporation and the way in which it has been administered. If a local authority had been so criticised by the NAO, there would have been a scandal. At least the report was published and it can be debated.
Although we welcome the concession, we want to know whether the NAO reports will be published and whether they can be debated in the House. It is no good producing reports unless they are published. If the NAO is to publish its reports, we wholeheartedly welcome the Government's proposals.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I am right in saying that the NAO reports are always published, and certainly they should be in this case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 332, in page 93, line 28, at end insert —
'( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, a report shall give particulars of the name and address of every person who, in the financial year to which the report relates, has received financial assistance from the trust under section 66(1) of this Act, together with particulars of the form of the assistance, the amount involved and the purpose for which the assistance was given.'.
The amendment meets the point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). He did stalwart service during the middle of the night, and it is understandable that he is not in his place now, and we certainly do not hold that against him.
The hon. Gentleman said in Committee that it would be fair for details of financial assistance by HATs to other bodies to be published in the annual reports so that we would know what sort of bodies they were supporting. We agreed to that and the amendment meets his request.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58

OBJECTS AND GENERAL POWERS OF HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS

Amendment made: No. 298, in page 42, line 45, at end add —
'( ) Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities: general statutory duty) shall apply to a housing action trust as it applies to a local authority.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 59

THE HOUSING ACTION TRUST'S PROPOSALS FOR ITS AREA

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 43, line 8, at end insert —
'(1A) The statement shall include the trust's intended policy on—
(a) the implementation of its duties under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976;
(b) adherence to codes of practice issued by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission;
(c) rents and service charges;
(d) any planned programme of renovation;
(e) the disposal of housing accommodation;
(f)its response to management guidance issued by the Secretary of State; and
(g)the programme through which the trust will discharge its duties and make arrangements for its dissolution.'.

We want some definition in the legislation of what a HAT will do and of its functions and its limitations. That is why amendment No. 89 is important. We want a statement of the activities of the trust to include its intended policy on the implementation of its duties under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. We do not think that the Government will disagree with that. Indeed, there was a major discussion on that issue earlier in our debates.
We want the trust to adhere to the codes of practice issued by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. That has been one of our major disagreements because, although the Government accepted the need for action under section 71 of the Race Relations Act, it was difficult to convince them that a trust should have some responsibility for equal opportunities. That does not surprise us because in all the legislation, including this legislation, the Local Government Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill, the Government have paid scant attention to equal opportunities and have legislated to prevent local authorities from being concerned about equal opportunities. However, we should like housing action trusts to be concerned about them and to take account of what the Equal Opportunities Commission has to say. That is important.
We want the rents and service charges policies of housing action trusts to be spelt out. The Government's definitions of market rents, affordable rents, fair rents, reasonable rents, assured tenancies and secure tenancies have always been rather nebulous. The Government have been moving the goalposts throughout the course of the Bill in respect of their definitions of rents. Although it may take a few years, they will return housing to the market place wherever they can and thus have a free market in housing and have high market rents which relate to what people can charge. So far as Ministers are concerned, the higher the rents the better.
However, because of the criticism, pressure and worries about the political consequences of that proposal, the Government have hedged their bets. They have talked about affordable rents in the housing association sector —whatever that means—and market rents in the private sector, and they have given some assurances about the nature and level of rents for council housing and housing estates taken over by private organisations. However, we have not had any assurances about the levels for housing action trusts and what they might be in the future, whether they will he affordable and remain fair, or whether they will he market rents and how quickly the Government's aim of market rents will be achieved. We would like the housing action trusts' intended polices to be spelt out when any HATs are declared.
The same is true of service charges. Basically that is a way of obtaining more rent than is allowed under the machinery to which any organisation must submit itself in respect of rent. If there are ways of charging higher rents through loopholes in respect of service charges, they should be spelt out and any abuse prevented. The Government should be sympathetic to that because they were keen to criticise any local authority that happened to be Labour-controlled and used service charges in connection with the right-to-buy provisions in the Government's legislation. We do not believe that service charges should be used in the legislation to allow HATs to charge what would be virtually higher rents than would otherwise be allowed in the legislation. We see no reason why the Government should not provide a policy statement in respect of HATs in that connection.
We want to know, in advance of publication, any planned programme of renovation proposed by a HAT. We want to know about the disposal of the housing accommodation. That is one of the great fears of many council estate tenants throughout the country. It is not just a question of HATs taking over or of picking a landlord and handing over an estate to a private body. It is also a question of what will happen eventually to the housing when the HATs are wound up and the private landlords want to sell to another third party. We are most concerned about any proposals for the disposal of accommodation after the period during which the HAT has been operating and has done the job that the Government set. We need to know about that.
We also need to know the HATs' response to the management guidance which was issued by the Secretary of State. We hear enough criticism about local authorities and responses are demanded from them on management guidance issues in the circulars issued by the Secretary of State. I imagine that the Secretary of State will give guidance to the HATs on management. We want to know what that guidance will be and what the HATs' response will be. As I have said, the programmes through which the trust will discharge its duties and make arrangements for its dissolution are major issues relating to exactly how the HATs will be dissolved.
2 pm
In a later amendment we will consider the rights of the residents in housing action trusts to he able to opt to return to local authority control if they want to do so. If the Government believe in freedom of choice, they should give freedom to the residents of the declared housing action

trust areas to determine their long-term future once the HAT has completed the job that the Government have set it.
We understand that, having starved local authorities of resources by cutting housing investment programmes and subsidies for the housing revenue accounts, the Government feel guilty about the fact that local authorities which could have solved the problems of many of those council estates have been starved of the resources to do so. As a result, social problems have developed on those estates as well as problems with the fabric. We understand that, because the Government feel guilty about that, they have declared these HATs which will pump resources into the rundown estates. As the Government have been party to running down those estates, they want the housing action trusts operating so that they can deal with the problems of those inner-city estates.
Having done that, there is no reason why in the future, once the job is done, and once the resources have been poured in, the local authority and the tenants should not have a say in their long-term future and in the type of tenancy under which they live. Tenants should have a say in whether the local authority should be their landlord. Again, if Conservative Members really believe in choice in housing, they will support that proposal and our amendment.
As I have said, the amendment is wide-ranging and covers many policy areas for which HATs will be responsible. Whether they like it or not, the Government, or the HATs when they are established, must address those issues. It is right and proper that the House of Commons should put down its requirements now in the form of amendments if the management of the estate is to he taken over, often against the wishes of the tenants.

Mr. Waldegrave: The argument is not about our objectives but about whether the Bill meets those objectives. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has stated that he is keen to see the objectives set out clearly and in detail. We believe that clause 59 achieves that. Clause 61 makes it clear that the statement which the HATs must produce should cover the HAT's proposals with regard to the exercise of its functions in that area. There is a clear requirement that housing action trusts should set out their proposals in relation to their responsibilities when drawing up that statement. Many of the items included in the amendment need to be addressed in the statement. We do not believe that it is right to set that out in advance and in detail on the face of the Bill, because the situation may be different in different HATs and we should wait to see what appear to be the proper priorities for the first statement from a HAT.
Opposition Members are anxious, as we all are, to keep an eye on the progress of HATs. That is why we are, in the first instance, committed to publishing our management guidance for HATs, which was welcomed when we made the commitment in Committee. Secondly, HATs will be subject to the corporate planning system which will annually review their progress against individually set performance measures. Thirdly, HATs will produce annual reports to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Fourthly, we have fulfilled the commitment that we gave in Committee and have brought forward the amendment, which was welcomed generously by the hon. Member for Bootle, about giving the National Audit


Office access to HATs. Taking that together with the extensive consultation requirements that are being placed on the HATs, HATs will be subject to close public scrutiny. By their nature, they will be subject to close scrutiny locally and in this place, and that is right.
We would have to resist amendment No. 89 if it were pressed. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Bootle looks at the battery of constraints that we have placed on HATs, he will believe that we have met at least some part of his concern.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We are not happy with the Government's response, although we accept that there have been some minor concessions. We should like the details to be spelt out in the Bill. Because the Government have not gone far enough, we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 189

Division No. 357]
[2.5 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Allen, Graham
Hardy, Peter


Alton, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Henderson, Doug


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Hood, Jimmy


Battle, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bell, Stuart
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Blunkett, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Boyes, Roland
Lamond, James


Bradley, Keith
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McAllion, John


Buchan, Norman
McAvoy, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
McCartney, Ian


Caborn, Richard
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McFall, John


Clelland, David
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
McTaggart, Bob


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Cummings, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dalyell, Tam
Martlew, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Parry, Robert


Galbraith, Sam
Patchett, Terry


Galloway, George
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles





Randall, Stuart
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Wall, Pat


Richardson, Jo
Wallace, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Cook.


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardiner, George


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Allason, Rupert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Amos, Alan
Gorst, John


Arbuthnot, James
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Ashby, David
Gregory, Conal


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grist, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Grylls, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hannam,John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowis, John
Hayward, Robert


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hind, Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Holt, Richard


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Chris
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knapman, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Critchley, Julian
Knowles, Michael


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lilley, Peter


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Evennett, David
Malins, Humfrey


Favell, Tony
Marland, Paul


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David






Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Sir Hal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Morrison, Sir Charles
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Summerson, Hugo


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wilshire, David


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 60

HOUSING ACTION TRUST AS HOUSING AUTHORITY ETC.

Amendment made: No. 362, in page 44, line 19, at end insert—
'( ) Where a housing action trust is to exercise functions conferred on a local housing authority by any of Parts VI, VII, IX and XI of the Housing Act 1985, section 36 of the Local Government Act 1974 (recovery by local authorities of establishment charges) shall apply to the housing action trust as if it were a local authority within the meaning of that section.'.—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 61

PLANNING CONTROL

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 311, in page 44, line 34, leave out 'after consultation with' and insert 'with the consent of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 312, in page 44, line 35, leave out 'with' and insert 'of'.

Mr. Spearing: Clause 61 of this controversial Bill confers planning control powers on the housing action trusts. As was said in an earlier debate, it is in itself a controversial matter, because, it will involve taking powers from the local borough or district council and putting them in the hands of a HAT. That is an exceptional step of which there has been only one previous example in this

country, in urban development corporations. It is particularly controversial because, despite their reassuring name, housing action trusts are appointed by the Secretary of State. HATs are not accountable to local people and are not formally connected in any way with local councils, but fall entirely within the jurisdiction and direction of the Secretary of State.
The power that will be given to housing action trusts is controversial because they will be entirely within the remit of the Secretary of State and because they will remove powers from local authorities. The subsection about which I am worried states:
A housing action trust may submit to the Secretary of State proposals for the development of land within its designated area and the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local planning authority within whose area the land is situated and with any other local authority which appears to him to be concerned, may approve any such proposals either with or without modification.
I emphasise the latter few words because they mean that even if housing action trusts have an idea of what to do —they may have conducted some informal non-statutory consultation with the local authority or with the people whom they are supposed to benefit—the Secretary of State can modify those proposals. That is controversial because it means that Whitehall can modify a planning application made in Manchester, Newcastle or Wales without intervention by our democratic planning procedures. Under those procedures, appeals are made to the Secretary of State, cases are called in occasionally or there are public local inquiries to which the Secretary of State sends an inspector. In this case, not only will the planning proposal be drawn up not by the democratic planning committee but by the housing action trust, but the Secretary of State can modify the proposal without giving a reason and without democratic dialogue.
The simple change that I propose would mean that, instead of just consulting the local planning authority on the development of land, the housing action trust must obtain its consent. The HAT may cover only a small area, whereas a planning district or borough may be fairly large and may require a range of technical expertise in its staff. For those small areas to have their own planning powers is a grotesque interference with the established structure of planning. By substituting "consent" for "consultation" wish to bring back the democratic process so that there can be a proper relationship between the housing action trust area and the much larger surrounding area.
Let us take the example of docklands. As we know from an earlier debate, it is possible that a housing action trust will be established in the Canning Town area of the London borough of Newham. The area has a local plan and is subject to Newham's planning proposals. The facilities provided and the amount of open space established in the borough are regulated by a well-known planning process. The idea that people appointed by central Government should draw up a plan for the area that is unrelated to the plans of local elected councils and subject to central direction from the Secretary of State, with only the limited consultation available under the Bill, is wrong and undemocratic.
We already have something like this—the London Docklands development corporation. It is a planning authority, which means that there is now no proper democratic accountability for its decisions other than through the House. Hon. Members know that we have a lot to do here, but it is ludicrous that accountability for


certain decisions in my constituency is via the Secretary of State. The planning proposals that come from the LDDC are not subject to any democratic check other than across the Floor of the House or via the Royal Mail or, occasionally, the pigeonholes in the Central Lobby.
At the moment, we have an important planning application for jets to use London City airport. The decision to put jets into an airport surrounded by tower blocks, flats and factories, some of them with important works, has aroused a great deal of local controversy. However, instead of the planning authority now considering an application by the airways people for those movements, and being responsible to the local people, it is responsible only to the LDDC, which in turn is responsible to the Minister. It will make the decision and, although local people may have a say, they will not decide.
The same will apply to a housing action trust. I am not suggesting that there will be many airports bang in the middle of a HAT, but we do not know what applications there may be for high-value developments. Many such schemes—for example, for luxury flats—might easily be located in a HAT. For instance, there may be an area of open space which the HAT considers to be in excess of need. There is nothing to prevent it from selling off part of the space for a luxury hotel. The planning application would be agreed, and without let or hindrance the HAT would get the plan through. It is a nominee of the Secretary of State.
Who would have believed that this Government, who talk about local freedoms, would establish a planning system in which somebody in Whitehall could determine the future use, "with or without modification", as clause 61 says, of somewhere in Nottingham, Cheshire or anywhere to the north of Berwick?

Mr. Hanley: Or Richmond.

Mr. Spearing: It could be Richmond, although I doubt that HATs are likely to be there. It is not the sort of area that the Secretary of State has in mind.
Who would have supposed that a Conservative Government would have made such a proposal? What about the relationship between this proposal and the strategic plan? In an earlier debate, the Secretary of State, trying to be reassuring, said that the HATs will have to be in accordance with the strategic plan. The Secretary of State is not here, so I ask the Minister: what is the strategic plan for Greater London? We have not got one.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The elimination of Labour seats.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has brought me on to my next point about the elimination of the GLC.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No, Labour seats.

Mr. Spearing: A Secretary of State may have the elimination of Labour seats in mind when he considers areas suitable for HATs—we have not yet been told where they will be. They are not being given to the people. Conservative Members say that they are being given to the people, but they are being given to the members of the housing action trust, who will be local gauleiters, local stewards of the Secretary of State, not only because they will have the ownership of the land which they will have purchased from the council at knock-down prices,

including all the peasants, all the peons, all the villeins, cotters and bordars in occupation of the manor which at the moment belongs to the people, but they will also have planning permission for vacant land.
It is a formula for all sorts of problems to give people who are not democratically accountable locally the ownership of space plus the magic Midas touch of planning permission, and for all that to be subject to the diktat of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, as far as the House is concerned, it remains Tuesday and that Wednesday's business has now gone? Secondly, would it be possible for you to ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on business? He is not here, and I should have thought that the Leader of the House should be present to make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It remains Tuesday and we are debating amendment No. 311.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are debating the Housing Bill, and the Opposition are doing that at length because of the importance of the subject and not with any wish to talk out any other business. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully accept that. The occupants of the Chair will ensure that the debate remains in order, as has been the case so far.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very grateful for your last comment because there have been suggestions that there have been unduly lengthy speeches on some points. In case one or two of the rowdy hooligans on the Tory Benches failed to catch it, you, Mr. Speaker, have just confirmed that the debate has been conducted in good order throughout. The Labour Opposition certainly have been examining the Bill in detail. It deserves every bit of detailed consideration.

Mr. Spearing: May I confirm what my hon. Friend has just said. In an earlier debate I moved a group of amendments at about 6.30 am which were voted on at about 12.30 pm. I do not recall at any time the occupant of the Chair calling any hon. Member to order for wandering beyond the scope of the amendments. Although I spoke at some length, I challenge anyone to look at Hansard and say that what I said was not necessary and important.
Just to put it on record, it would have been possible for the Government to have moved a closure motion. I am not saying that it would have been accepted because we were dealing with very important matters. If they had an intimation that it would not have been accepted, and therefore did not move it, that proves what my hon. Friend said, that the matters concerned were such that the Government did not claim to move a closure motion.
Having made a little procedural detour, may I now revert to the Greater London council and its strategic plan. At the moment, there is no strategic planning in London. Therefore, for the Secretary of State to say that planning goes on as before and that the housing action trust will have to take account of the local strategic plan means that he does not understand that, although there was a strategic plan for London, and it stands for something, it cannot be


updated. Nor can it be updated for the metropolitan counties because they have disappeared. How we are to have proper strategic planning in the metropolitan counties or in Greater London is becoming more apparent day by day. Every week we have some announcement from the Department of the Environment or the Department of Transport about studies concerning railways, roads, and airports or we receive rumours of new housing estates from various Departments willy-nilly and not at all co-ordinated.
The Department of the Environment is now considering building large numbers of what are called low-cost areas in various parts of Greater London, particularly in east London. The Department is now in consultation with people about those areas. Some of them could be housing action trust areas, but in putting those areas on the map, and in discussions about them, there has been very little regard to strategic planning, particularly transport and roads, which are vital for getting people in and out of areas to and from work.
Here we have yet another planning body spatchcocked into an already unsatisfactory situation. Also, the Secretary of State is given unprecedented powers centrally to determine what should happen. He does not even do that for the urban development corporations, which are bad enough. I can see what will happen. There will be more correspondence in the press, more letters, more Adjournment debates from enraged hon. Members, more deputations to the Department of the Environment in Marsham street and more confusion. When people in the areas ask, "Why can't the planning committee do something about it?" and they are told, "It is up to the Secretary of State", they will then say, "What? All the way down in London?". We get that from a Government who say that they believe in giving people freedom and choice, but this measure will do the very opposite. It will restrict choice.
There is an example of what already has gone wrong in planning in London. I conclude my remarks on the benefits of the amendment by mentioning what has happened. At the moment east London is suffering from an enormous housing shortage. We all know that in London there is an extreme shortage of rented housing at reasonable rents because the Government have cut council house building by about half throughout the country.
A few years ago the Government said, "We will regenerate east London. We will regenerate the docklands area. Let us have a docklands development corporation." There has been a lot of controversy about what has happened.
I have the record of the other place for 1 July 1981. I believe that I cannot quote exactly the words said in the other place unless they are the words of a Minister, but in column 214 the Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, who, in my view mistakenly, permitted the London Docklands development corporation to proceed, said that the greatest need in docklands must always be for rented accommodation for people of modest means. He said that at the moment it was not possible for that to be built, but he looked forward to the day when it would be.
We all know what has happened. We now have Canary wharf, 12 million sq ft of commercial property surrounded by similar developments, with a knock-on effect on housing values and no plans for any large area of municipal building. That has caused a great deal of

trouble, not only in terms of transport but also for the local community. The knock-on effect on house price; is making it impossible for local people to stay. They are looking for even cheaper accommodation further away.
In Newham the escalating cost of new houses means that families who have lived in the area for generations are now unable to stay. Whereas years ago in the same job they would have had a modest mortgage for a small house, that is no longer possible. That is because the LDDC, which is not democratically accountable locally either to the GLC, which has been dissolved, or to the local council, has got away with putting up Canary wharf without even a planning inquiry. I am not saying to the Minister that it therefore follows that there will be such developments in every housing action trust which is created. However, I am describing the danger of departing from the normal post-war planning laws that in broad terms were agreed by both sides. If that can happen disastrously in respect of the social and economic effects of a development such as Canary wharf, there could be many developments of that sort in any designated housing trust area. That could happen anywhere in the country, not only in London. Such plans would be under the direct authority of the Minister and he could modify them should he care to use the powers that are included in the Bill.
It was wrong of the Government to draft the clause in this way. It would make much better sense if the word "consultation" were deleted and if the words "agreement of the local authority" were inserted. I hope to hear from the Minister that she will consider doing so. If the Government cannot do so now, I hope that they will be prepared to make the amendment when the Bill reaches another place in the next few weeks.

Mrs. Roe: I regret that these amendments represent a further attempt by the Opposition to frustrate the objectives of housing action trusts. Not content with the provisions in clause 61 that require the Secretary of State to consult local planning authorities about a housing action trust's development proposals, or with the provisions in clause 59 that require HATs to consult authorities about their general proposals for the designated area, the amendments seek to add a further layer of planning bureaucracy.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is concerned about the lack of a strategic plan for London. There is now a London planning advisory committee to which the Secretary of State has issued guidelines, on the basis of which the committee is in the process of drawing up strategic guidance. If HATs are proposed for London, that guidance will be taken into account.
We have made it clear that we do not intend HATs to take over the role of local planning authorities in drawing up formal development plans and we shall expect HATs have regard to such plans when working out their proposals. That reaffirms our wish to see co-operative working arrangements being developed between HATs and local authorities.
However, the job that HATS are being set up to do is urgent. The people who currently live in run-down areas dominated by unattractive council estates deserve to see early results. If that can be achieved in harmony with local planning authorities I shall be delighted, but we are not prepared to risk obstruction from those who want HATs to fail.
Clause 61 is therefore necessary to achieve that purpose. We have built in adequate consultation procedures with local authorities both in respect of a housing action trust's general proposals and its development intentions. Beyond that, we have already debated the extent to which HATs will be accountable for their activities. There is therefore no justification for the amendments and I invite hon. Members to reject them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: In Committee, the Opposition made it clear that they oppose the need to establish housing action trusts, but we welcome the fact that for the first time in nine years the Government have committed themselves to providing additional resources for problem council estates that need money to be spent on them to revitalise them. The Opposition Front Bench view is that the best way to deal with problem estates would be to provide the necessary resources to local authorities to carry out the job, in consultation with, and with the co-operation of, their tenants.
Many of the local authorities in which HATs are to be declared have already consulted their tenants and have drawn up plans for their problem estates. For example, that is true of the Hulme estate in Manchester. All that is preventing action being taken by the local authority, in consultation and in conjunction with their tenants, is the Government's refusal to give to local authorities the resources that they need to do the job. That has been the position for nine years. Housing action trusts do not need to be declared before the Government can make money available to local authorities to deal with problem estates.
We recognise that problem estates exist and that the only way to deal with them is to pump into them the necessary resources. If the Government push through their legislation, against all the advice that they have been given by the Opposition, no local authority in its right mind will oppose additional resources coming its way, but we are opposed to the bureaucratic machine that is to be established to spend that money. We are opposed to the fact that the tenants and the planning authority will not be involved or consulted.
The worst way to deal with a problem estate is for the Secretary of State to appoint a non-elected quango that will probably act against the wishes of the residents. Instead of tenants benefiting from modernisation, renovation and improvements, they might be driven out by gentrification and yuppification, as some Conservative Members implied earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has moved an amendment that would restore accountability, democracy and reasonable planning procedures to housing action trusts. It is not a wrecking tactic. The Government ought to welcome my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Spearing: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the Minister's reply. I was astonished by its brevity and illogicality. She will correct me if I am wrong, but I think she said that my amendment would add yet another layer of planning bureaucracy to that which already exists.

Mrs. Roe: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister nods her head. I do not suggest that planning is without its bureaucracy. Many people get up-tight when they are told that they cannot have planning permission, but one man's bureaucracy is another man's protection.
The additional layer of bureaucracy is not in the amendment; it is in the Bill. The amendment seeks to remove the additional layer of bureaucracy that the Secretary of State is imposing on local authorities. I expected a higher standard of accuracy from the Minister. If she would care to withdraw her accusation that my amendment imposes an additional layer of bureaucracy, I should be very pleased to accept an apology. To accuse me of imposing an additional layer of bureaucracy when that is what the Bill is doing takes the biscuit. It is not even up to Standing Committee standard on a bad Wednesday morning, let alone on the Floor of the House. Standards in Marsham street must be dropping quite remarkably.
The Minister also said that there is a strategic plan for London and that the London planning advisory committee has been asked to get on with it. That committee is what it is called; it is an advisory committee. It does not have the resources of the old Greater London council. It does not know the views of local people, through their elected representatives. Representatives of the borough councils serve on the advisory committee, but borough councils have their own particular view. As a Member of Parliament with a London constituency, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that Croydon is all that matters to the councillors of Croydon and Newham is all that matters to the councillors of Newham. That must apply also to Kensington. Kensington is everything to the councillors of Kensington. Can we expect them to get together in the London planning advisory committee and sort out an effective strategic plan for London? I suggest that that is impossible.
The Minister also referred to run-down council estates. There may be a need to rehabilitate, rejuvenate and regenerate—a word that is being used in connection with the London Docklands development corporation. It may be regenerating the environment, but the LDDC is not regenerating communities.
Will those run-down council estates be assisted by development for which local authorities cannot give planning permission? In the amendment, we are talking about not money but planning. What planning permission could be given by a HAT that could not be given by a local authority to an applicant to improve the quality of the environment of those estates? That will not require a new planning authority.
I suggest that the Government have a different objective in mind. Why? Because it is in the Bill. Clause 58(1)(c) states that the objective of a housing trust is
to encourage diversity in the interests by virtue of which housing accommodation in the area is occupied and, in the case of accommodation that is occupied under tenancies, diversity in the identity of the landlords".
That is the objective of a HAT. A landlord who wishes to develop the slice of territory that he has been given by the HAT may make a planning application. At present, if the change to a new landlord has been effected by one of the voluntary arrangements in the White Paper, the landlord is still subject to planning permission from the borough. He cannot do exactly what he likes. Under this part of the


Bill, the HAT can hear an application from the landlord, who may have vacant possession of a plot of land, and say "You can put up a building, hotel or a block of offices."

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is talking about the generality of the new HATs, but he should understand that certain areas will not be touched at all. It would be incredible, following the Secretary of State's alarming television interview this week, if somebody said that they were to develop in his back yard. My guess is that there will be no HAT in that area, and I do not think that there will be one for Chequers. If a developer said "We shall turn Chequers into 20 flats under a HAT", the Government would not wear it and the Prime Minister would put a stop to it.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is right. I cannot foresee planning powers in areas such as Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Essex or Berkshire being taken away from their county councils. Berkshire county council is not always in agreement with the Government, but imagine what would happen if a Labour Government said to Berkshire county council, "We are creating a rural development area in Berkshire. The county planning authority has no power." Imagine the indignation and accusations of dictatorship that would follow. That is, however, what is happening in urban areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right to say that it would not happen where the Secretary of State lives.
The Minister said that planning permission will be in the hands of the Secretary of State. We therefore deduce that the Government are interested in taking the right to grant planning permission away from elected, democratic planning committees. In Newham it is not planning permission but money that is required. We have eight tower blocks unoccupied because they are unsafe. I have an estimate that was given to Newham borough council in 1985 of how much it would cost to repair those tower blocks. Hume point would require £2·5 million and John Sopp and Ault points would require £6 million for essential repairs. If the repairs were done on a unit basis, it would cost between £22,000 and £36,000 per housing unit. I believe that the same problem is to be found in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. It may not be to the same intense degree, but if run-down estates are to be rejuvenated, such resources will be needed, rather than the transfer of planning permission, which undoubtedly will be used by the Minister's agents to grease the slipways for planning developments which will not help the area's people and which will be out of kilter with the sort of strategic plans that exist elsewhere.
For those reasons, I urge that the amendment be pressed to a vote. It is important to make a protest against the takeover by lackeys in Whitehall of areas that belong to the people.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 63

PUBLIC HEALTH

Amendment made: No. 364, in page 46, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) Where an order under this section provides that a housing action trust shall have the functions conferred upon a local authority by Part III of the 1936 Act, section 36 of the Local Government Act 1974 (recovery by local authorities of

establishment charges) shall apply to the housing action trust as if it were a local authority within the meaning of that section.'.—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 65

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 88,
in page 47, line 42, at end insert
'and at the end of that section there shall be added—
(2) In deciding what assistance it is reasonable to render in discharging its duty under this section, a housing action trust shall have regard to the proportion of all vacancies arising in housing accommodation transferred to it by an order under section 69 of the Housing Act 1988 let to homeless persons in the year before the making of the order.".'.
We want to make progress, but the amendments are so
important and deal with such significant issues it is difficult to move quickly.
Amendment No. 88 relates to homelessness. We could not be discussing a more important issue in the House, whether it be Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mr. Skinner: It is Wednesday at Ascot.

Mr. Roberts: If the people at Ascot were addressing their minds to homelessness, the nation would be on the road to solving the problem.
The problem is that when. HATs are declared and the bureaucratic quangos or lackeys of Whitehall take over, the responsibility that rests with local government for rehousing and homelessness ceases to exist within the area that the HAT has taken over. Following pressure from the Opposition, the Government admitted in Committee that that was a problem and introduced an amendment designed to give HATs some responsibility for rehousing homeless people. That took the form of an amendment to section 72 of part III of the Housing Act 1985, which we used to know as the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. It covered co-operation between local authorities and other housing bodies. Where a local housing authority requests a HAT to assist it in the discharge of its functions relating to rehousing the homeless, the HAT
to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates as is reasonable in the circumstances.
If any hon. Member, including the Minister, can tell me what that means, and what responsibility is placed on the HAT within the definition of the HAT's requirements, they are doing better than I am. It is obviously Civil Service, legal or ministerial mumbo-jumbo, which does not place any responsibility on the HAT at all, except that it must
co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of functions to which the request relates as is reasonable in the circumstances.
What does
as is reasonable in the circumstances
mean?

Mr. Robert Litherland: My hon. Friend has mentioned the monolithic council estate in Hulme in Manchester—a system-built estate which, frorn the day of its construction, has proved faulty. Suppose that that is declared a housing action trust. Because we cannot let the properties, there is an imbalance; the tenants are mainly students and single people, including single


parents. Suppose that the Government bring in an unelected, unrepresentative body, a HAT, which says, "We cannot get any entrepreneurs to come back into Hulme to produce the necessary finance to rejuvenate the area." The Secretary of State will then give that body the responsibility—or authority—to demolish. Once it had been demolished, what will happen to all the single people who will then be declared homeless?

3 pm

Mr. Roberts: That is an important question and if Hulme is declared a HAT the Government will answer it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), I have had some experience in dealing with the Hulme estate; I was chair of housing in the city of Manchester. If the Government had the courage to act on a real problem estate, they would not declare the houses in Hulme, which can be rehabilitated, a housing action trust; they would declare the crescents a HAT. In 10 years' time they will have to be demolished anyway. Then, in co-operation with the local authority, they would accept responsibility to rehouse the people who live in the crescents and provide the necessary housing investment programme allocation to enable the city of Manchester to build low-rise council houses with gardens and purpose-built accommodation for single people. However, I do not expect that that will be the Government's response.
We are dealing with the responsibility of housing action trusts, wherever they are, for the homeless. One of our criticisms of the Bill is that homelessness is mentioned in only one place—in the amendment that we managed to persuade the Government to move, but which we believe to be inadequate. The words "reasonable in the circumstances" could enable a bureaucratic HAT to say, "We do not have any accommodation in the area for which we are responsible. It is therefore not reasonable to expect us to assist in housing the homeless". That could happen even if those people have become homeless in the area for which the HAT is responsible.
Our amendment seeks to tighten the definition of what is reasonable in the way of assistance by drawing the HAT's attention to the previous use of its newly acquired stock for rehousing homeless people. The ineffectiveness of section 72 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, the homeless persons legislation, is clear. Section 72 applies where a local authority approaches another local authority, a registered housing association, a new town corporation or the Scottish Special Housing Association for assistance. During the debate on the provision in 1977 strong doubts were cast upon its effectiveness in forcing co-operation on unwilling bodies. We are sure that HATs, peopled by the friends of the Secretary of State for the Environment, will be unwilling to accept some responsibility for homeless families in their local authority area.
In the debate on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill in 1977, the present Secretary of State for Defence said:
That is not an extremely hard and demanding requirement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A;23 June 1977, c. 369.]
He said that it was a very mild requirement. You can say that again. It left the door wide open for the SSHA, for example, to say that it appreciated that it was being asked to co-operate but that it was not prepared to make houses available for homeless people. There were plenty of

reasons that a body could give. That is what the housing action trusts are likely to say. They will say that they are not prepared to make their houses available for homelessness; there are plenty of reasons that they can give under the Bill.
Housing associations can also be required to help under section 72. The problem with them is also clear. The misgivings expressed in Parliament in 1977 have been borne out over time. Housing associations have been the major bodies to which local authorities have had recourse for help in fulfilling their responsibilities for rehousing the homeless. It is worth considering the results of that relationship. I do not criticise the housing association movement in any way. There are reasons other than the housing association movement's desire or otherwise to help the homeless to explain why matters have unfolded as they have. If co-operation with such generally sympathetic bodies as housing associations is not working out, there is even less likelihood of successful co-operation with housing action trusts.
Useful and mutually beneficial arrangements have been built up between individual councils and housing associations under section 72 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Many housing associations perform a valuable role in helping to rehouse the homeless. However, according to reports from many London boroughs, not all is perfect. While some associations give all, or a large proportion of, their stock to rehousing the homeless, others house few or no homeless applicants because it does not, appear to them to be "reasonable in the circumstances". The Londonwide figures give us some idea of the problem. Between 1980 and 1986, the proportion of London local authority tenancies let to the homeless increased from 31 per cent. of the vacancies to 51 per cent. In the same period, the proportion of housing association stock let to homeless nominees rose from 16 per cent. to 21 per cent—an increase of only 5 per cent. as compared with the 20 per cent. increase faced by councils.
The Minister does not accept that the council is the housing authority of last resort. When all else fails, it is the council that has to deal with homeless people who have been rejected by private landlords, the housing association movement—and in future by the housing action trusts if they are established.

Mr. Skinner: Unless it is Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Roberts: Unless it is Tower Hamlets, which does not want to house the homeless at all.
The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea provides a useful local example. In Committee the Minister mentioned the royal borough with pride as a good example of co-operation. The number of vacancies offered to it by local associations dropped from 386 in 1985–86 to 280 in 1986–87. That was despite the fact that the borough is unique in having more housing association property than council property, that it has provided more than £137 million in the last 10 years to develop housing association fair rent accommodation and that it alone provides around 12 per cent. of the total national and local authority funding for associations. There are many good reasons why the housing associations cannot fulfil their obligations to house the homeless as many of them would wish. In spite of blandishments and public statements by Housing Ministers and successive Secretaries of State for the Environment about how they support the voluntary


housing association movement, the movement has faced exactly the same cuts in capital allocations as the local authorities during the Government's nine years in office.
There are many good reasons that partly explain the seeming reluctance of some housing associations to pull their weight. Housing association stock is not always appropriate for rehousing families, as many of the associations have been established to meet special needs. That is the special role of many of them, and it is welcome. Some housing associations are geared towards specific client groups of non-priority homeless whom councils would not have the responsibility of rehousing. Some prioritise internal transfers for their tenants before they take in new tenants.
The fact remains, however, that there are serious and growing worries among local authorities about the proportionately reducing role of housing associations in housing homeless people in London and throughout the country. The Bill makes matters worse by attempting to change the whole nature of the housing association movement, slowly nudging it out of the voluntary sector into the private sector with affordable rather than fair rents—with cuts in grant from central Government to housing associations and with housing associations being encouraged to take on the role of the organisation that facilitates the privatisation of council estates. As a result, housing associations will be less able to deal with the homeless.

Mr. Spearing: If there is a decline in supply, and the general level of rents goes up—which the Government have made clear is one of their aims—the amount of accommodation available to housing associations will decline, thus reducing their ability to help the homeless, and the cost to borough councils will increase as market rents rise. As somebody in my constituency said, that will result in camp sites in Epping forest.

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. The squeeze on the homeless is coming from all directions. I am not criticising housing associations. I am criticising the Government for creating the circumstances in which housing associations, some of them very good, cannot fulfil their responsibilities.
The Labour party is committed to a housing association movement which is part of the public sector and involved in the provision of social housing for people in housing need, and which receives Government assistance to that end. We reject the Government's proposals, which would force housing associations into the private sector and into becoming instruments of the free market. That is what the Government plan.
I hear you asking, Mr. Speaker, how all this relates to the amendment. We have heard that no local authority has ever used section 72 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to influence a housing association to remedy a problem. Even when the section was drawn to their attention, they did not feel that it could be used effectively.
In Kensington and Chelsea borough council, for example, long negotiations initiated by the council with a view to increasing the number of voids offered to it by housing associations have ended without the council getting its way. It could argue that the housing associations are being unreasonable, but it is unlikely to do so because it has no confidence in the effectiveness of section 72.
The same will be true for HATs. I paraphrase what the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said in 1977: it leaves the door wide open for the HAT to say that it appreciates that it is being asked to co-operate but that it is not prepared to make the houses available for homelessness—there are plenty of reasons that it can give.
The amendment would make the duty to co-operate more realistic. It would not make housing associations' duty to co-operate more realistic, as that could be done only if we tabled amendments that ensured that the housing association movement got the resources necessary to provide the accommodation needed for it to co-operate more realistically. Our amendment would make the HATs' duty to co-operate more realistic.
The HAT is, after all, taking over the local authority's housing stock and thus diminishing the local authority's ability to help the homeless. We think that there is a special reason why the duty on HATs should be stronger than it is on housing associations. We are making the duty to co-operate more realistic by defining more closely the criteria to be used when assessing whether it is reasonable for the HAT to assist a local authority. The amendment does not go as far as we should like, but it gives the HAT guidance, which is better than the amorphous phraseology of the Government's current draft.
3.15 pm
Given that, in theory, a HAT is meant to continue to use its newly acquired stock to provide social rented housing—that is what the Government have said, although we have reason to doubt that that is their long-term intention—it will need to have a clear picture of how the stock was used by the local authority. A large and increasing percentage of local authority housing is already being used to rehouse the homeless. Removing a substantial part of their pool of potential lettings will exacerbate local authorities' difficulties.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My hon. Friend said that the number of homeless families being rehoused has risen from 25 to 50 per cent. of all vacancies in some parts of London. In the London borough of Hackney, the homeless are taking up 90 per cent. of vacancies.

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that that is true. Homelessness is increasing throughout the country. Many people who are not strictly defined as homeless are on waiting lists and would feel justified in being given accommodation, but they are having to wait much longer because of increasing homelessness and local authorities' responsibility to house homeless families. That is a major problem, and it will be exacerbated if HATs take out a significant proportion—or even a small proportion—of the local authorities' available stock. Removing properties available to the local authority does not affect just the homeless—it adds to local authorities' difficulties when trying to fulfil their housing responsibilities.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not challenge for a moment what the hon. Gentleman has said about the problem of finding homes for homeless people, but I am puzzled about how amendment No. 88 tackles that problem. If, for example, 12 homeless families were granted a tenancy in the year before their homes were declared part of a HAT, there is no way in which they could be evicted. They would


have to be rehoused—unless I am reading the amendment incorrectly. They would not be homeless. Presumably they would have secure tenancies.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not listened to what I have said. Nor has he understood the amendment.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I have read the amendment.

Mr. Roberts: I have explained what the amendment would do to strengthen section 72 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. It would strengthen the Government's inadequate amendment, which would make HATs responsible for accepting the need to co-operate under section 72. If the hon. Gentleman would like it, I shall illustrate how our amendment would work, based on 1987 figures for a south London borough, which has so far managed to avoid using bed-and-breakfast hotels for its homeless families.
If the legislation requiring HATs to assist with homelessness is not strengthened, that borough will find that if a HAT is declared in its area and takes over 5,000 council properties, in the first year, it will lose 190 vacancies on the estate to which it would previously have had access. Some 81 per cent. of the vacancies would have gone to the priority homeless because the borough has the problems which my hon. Friends have mentioned, but more than 150 more homeless households will have to be housed in temporary accommodation.
The borough has used every alternative to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but it will now be forced to start using it. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation would cost the borough £2·3 million in the first year. Unless the people involved can be rehoused, that cost will be paid in year two as well. By that time, however, another year's vacancies will have been lost, and so yet more families will have to be put in bed and breakfast. Our amendment attempts to prevent that happening. It would prevent HATs refusing at least some of the 190 vacancies on the estate of 5,000 council properties being used to rehouse homeless families.
The Government do not want HATs to be responsible for rehousing homeless families. HATs are not designed to assist tenants who live on the estate or the homeless or to alleviate the local authority's problems. The Government's aim is to yuppify and gentrify the council estate, and in the end bring in different people—in other words, their aim is to destroy Labour's base by getting rid of Labour voters. In Wandsworth, the council has modernised and improved the estates, built walls round them to keep out local residents and introduced security guards. Such councils do not want that gentrification to be spoilt by homeless families. That is their motive. They fall into the prejudiced trap of believing that the definition of a homeless family is similar to that of a problem family. We know that that is not true and that homeless families have as much right to a decent home as other people.
Our amendment means that the housing action trust will have to take factors such as I have described into account when deciding whether to assist a local authority. It will have a clear mandate to remain part of the local social housing sector and also a clear duty to act as a responsible agency in helping to solve local housing problems, which we suspect that the Government do not

want it to do. They are involved in social engineering, not in dealing with social housing problems. That is the problem with the Government's proposals.
If the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, all well and good. However, if the Government and the housing action trust do not assist adequately and seek to avoid their responsibilities, the amendment gives clearer grounds for legal action to enforce the duty to the community. That is what we want.
In 1987, 112,730 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. Homelessness has more than doubled in the past few years while the Government have been in power. On 1 April 1987, 1,289,492 households were on council house waiting lists in England, of which 879,831 —68·2 per cent.—were assessed to be in serious and urgent need. All those figures come from the housing investment programme returns that the Department of the Environment has had from local authorities.
Homelessness is one of the scandals of our age. At Prime Minister's Question Time some weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister why homelessness had doubled during her period in office. She told me that it was because of marital breakdowns. If the party of the family has doubled homelessness because of increased marital breakdowns, it deserves condemnation by its own standards and moral values.
Homelessness is a serious problem. There are no proposals in the legislation that will help to meet the problems of the homeless. As I have explained, there are proposals in the Bill that will make the problems worse and will increase, not reduce, homelessness. Our amendment is a small attempt to alleviate the problems of homelessness and mitigate the difficulties that the Government are creating.

Mr. Boateng: In an intervention that he may regret, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), told the House that homelessness was to be a separate debate—I think that those were his words. But has he not realised over all the hours that we have been sitting here that this is a debate about housing? If housing is not about homelessness, what is it about? Why are we here? Why are we spending our time in this place if it is not to house the homeless?
The Conservative party agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with homelessness. Nowhere in the Bill, certainly nowhere in this part, which we are seeking to amend, does one find the word "homelessness". That is because the Conservatives do not care about the homeless. They do not care about those who, day in, day out, find themselves out in our streets in wooden boxes. They do not care about those who are cramped in appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation and about those who are in inadequate and unsatisfactory accommodation throughout the length and breadth of our country. They simply do not care, so they do not address the matter in the Bill.

Mr. Winnick: Did my hon. Friend notice that when my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said that one of the purposes of transferring council accommodation to HATs and then further into the private sector was to ensure that those properties were used by yuppies, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) nodded vigorously in agreement? He was honest enough—I give him credit for it—to admit what the


Government refuse to acknowledge, which is that much of what is now in the public sector is being transferred to people who are not in housing need and who have the income to find other accommodation.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend puts that well. The fact is that there are two purposes in the Bill, particularly in the provisions on housing action trusts.
The first purpose is to fatten up and farm out the best estates—to get rid of them and put them into the private sector. Then Porsches will be in and people out. That is the mentality of Conservative Members: out with the people, in with the Porsches.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Disgraceful.

Mr. Boateng: I hear the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, shout "Disgraceful," but if he would only go but a few miles from this Palace of Westminster, he would find manifold examples, in docklands and Wandsworth, of precisely what I am talking about. One cannot move in docklands for the Porsches, yet does one see a pram there? Does one see children playing there? No, one does not. One sees people who make their money in the City and who go home at night to their demi-palaces, at £250,000 and £500,000 for a bijou maisonette. That is the reality of housing provision under the Tories, and we are here to say no to it.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose—

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has had his say.
We are here to say that we are not prepared to tolerate Conservative Members using the vehicle of housing action trusts to drive those whom we represent out of their homes. We are not here to allow them to do that.
That is the Government's first purpose, but there is another.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend is talking about homes in docklands. Is he aware that in St. Katharine's dock he will find, as homes, yachts valued at —750,000, with radar equipment, which never see the sea?

Mr. Boateng: There is something peculiarly obscene about that picture, yet it is the day-to-day reality of our city now. Yachts are in docklands but there are cardboard boxes a few hundred yards down the road from the House.
There is a second agenda. I note that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is smiling, grimacing and nodding. He knows a lot about fattening up and farming out. No wonder what I have to say brings a smile of recognition to his lips. I welcome that—it is always welcome to see recognition of the truth on the face of Conservative Members.

Mr. Skinner: It is not a real smile because the hon. Gentleman is upset as he wanted to be at Ascot.

Mr. Boateng: The Opposition are sorry to be keeping the hon. Member for Crawley away from Ascot, but no doubt he will find a way to get there somehow.
For the price of a box at Ascot one could house a family in London for a year. But will the Conservatives spend the money on that? Do they know what it costs to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast for a certain time? It costs £11,000 a unit. Do they know what it would cost in the first year to build a home for that family? The cost would be £6,000, reducing by the end of the seventh year to £1,000. Yet Conservative Members prefer to keep families in

bed-and-breakfast accommodation rather than spend the money, as they should, in the public sector, providing low-cost accommodation to rent and, indeed, to buy, to give all the people a real choice.
3.30 pm
There is a second and more sinister reason behind housing action trusts. It is part of the hidden agenda. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South cannot wait to hear what is coming next. I will tell him. The second part of that hidden agenda, as he knows only too well, is to destroy the ability of democratically controlled local authorities to make adequate provision for housing in our cities. The Government want to destroy that function by introducing unelected, unaccountable bodies that will not be obliged to consult and take on board the needs and aspirations of the people in whose areas they have been imposed. There is no pretence about consulting on where those monstrosities will be erected. They will be erected according to the diktat of Ministers.
That is a totalitarian way of behaving. It denies people opportunity and choice, the very things that Conservative Members claim to support. They claim to belong to the party of the family, of choice and opportunity. Yet they deny opportunity and choice to families who seek no more than adequate and decent shelter. Why should they not have that? The Government will use the housing action trusts to drive a wedge between communities and their elected representatives.
The way in which they will use the housing action trusts is ingenious. The mischief that our amendment seeks to correct is that they will prevent local authorities from meeting the demands that we deal with in our surgeries every day. People with housing problems must even go to the hon. Member for Crawley in his surgery. It probably does them little good, but I am sure he is faced with such problems. When they come to us, what are we to say to them? We know that our local authorities, under the present regime, do not have the slightest chance of being able to house them.
The Under-Secretary is adopting a pose of becoming silence. If she were to speak, she would be obliged to say that only a few weeks ago she was busy congratulating my local authority, the London borough of Brent, on the innovative schemes it was developing, together with housing associations, to meet the needs of the homeless in my constituency. She has been to Brent and knows what is being done. Therefore, she must know that there is no way, with the imposition of housing action trusts, that that will continue. It will be like having a black hole imposed in one's constituency. All the capital and loot that Conservative Members are promising us for housing will be sucked into the housing action trusts. The most deprived estates, the houses that need refurbishment and repair and the new build for homeless families will be neglected.
The Minister must know that while she is heaping praise on the London borough of Brent for the work that it does—long may she continue to do so—our housing allocation for 1988–89 was only £19·25 million. We had asked for £82 million to deal with 900 homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and a further 800 in temporary accommodation. That is the extent of the crisis in that borough alone—the eighth most deprived borough. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is


nodding because he knows only too well that his borough is the most deprived in the country in terms of housing and on every other social and economic index. Yet the Government are cutting the resources available to us.
We have come to the House with a relatively minor and modest amendment. We are not asking for the world. We are asking only that the housing action trusts, when they are imposed, have a duty to take account—in the way in which Conservative Members are not prepared to do—of the plight of the homeless. We stand up for the homeless and, whether the Government like it or not, we intend to ensure that homelessness and the homeless are mentioned time and again in the Chamber and, one way or another, we will drive that into the Bill.

Mr. Winnick: One of the reasons why Labour Members are not willing to offer any apologies for what has happened during the Report stage of the Bill is our concern about the plight and tragedy of the homeless which has been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I find it difficult to believe that Conservative Members really understand their plight.
In your absence, Mr. Speaker, at about 5 o'clock this morning, I referred to the people sleeping about a quarter of a mile from here. They are not all tramps or irresponsible people but they are sleeping, night after night, in cardboard boxes by the Embankment tube station. Is not that a tragedy? How many of those people have come from areas of high unemployment simply because they have been told that London is the place to find work? Even if they can find work, which is perhaps not as easy as is sometimes claimed, they cannot afford accommodation. The price of the cheapest housing unit in London and the south-east is about £50,000 or £60,000 and that is for a one-bedroom flat. Rented accommodation is simply unavailable. Is it surprising that they sleep in cardboard boxes just a quarter of a mile from the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Skinner: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there would be plenty of photo opportunities for the Prime Minister if she went to Charing Cross instead of St. James's park. She should take the television cameras with her so that there would be a photo opportunity with the down-and-outs who have come to London to find a job because there are no jobs in the north. It would be wonderful if the Prime Minister recognised the gravity of the problem. All her photo opportunities are with the people she represents, those who will vote for her, so that she can kid the people by using the television. It would be a good idea, on some future occasion, if Labour Members went to Charing Cross and recognised the plight of those people in cardboard boxes.

Mr. Winnick: Even if, in the evening, the Prime Minister were to walk from No. 10 Downing street to Embankment tube station, it would not take long. In a car, it would take about two minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is absolutely right, as he usually is on such matters. He knows that Mother Teresa had to lecture the Prime Minister about homelessness in London. It is almost impossible to believe that, with all the problems to which Mother Teresa has

devoted her life on the Indian sub-continent, she is now having to lecture the Prime Minister about homelessness on the Prime Minister's doorstep.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would agree that not only should the Prime Minister visit that area but the Secretary of State for the Environment should also go, as should the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who is seeking to intervene.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Prime Minister should visit the area. Will he tell us when he last paid a visit?

Mr. Winnick: Yes, certainly. I went about three weeks ago.
The feeling I had then was one of sadness. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West whether he believes that I am telling the truth. I felt sad that in a country where much has been achieved over the past 50 or 60 years there are still people who spend so much of their time having to sleep in such conditions. It is a disgrace to a society in which the richest people are being so well rewarded by the Budget.
In addition, thousands of families are forced to live in bed-and-breakfast hostels. Let hon. Members imagine what it is like in this day and age trying to bring up young children in one squalid room, not through any malice on the part of the local authority—far from it—but simply because authorities are not in a position to offer accommodation. In the past eight or nine years, very few local authorities have been able to build. I do not know about your local authority, Mr. Speaker, but mine has been unable to build any local accommodation in the past nine years and there is no sign of the necessary finance being available in the future. That is one reason why there is so much housing stress and misery.
As a result of this part of the Bill, a certain amount —we do not know how much—of local authority rented accommodation will be transferred to completely unelected bodies appointed by the Secretary of State. After two or three years' managerial responsibility for the accommodation, the housing action trusts will not transfer it back to the local authority. The property will go from the local authority to the housing action trust and then into the privately rented sector. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) nods his assent to that.

Mr. Spearing: It is more likely to go out of the rented sector altogether and become privately owned.
When the Prime Minister came to the House this morning, she was reminded of her moral responsibility, a subject on which she claims to be an expert. The Under-Secretary of State must tell the House why the proportion of accommodation snatched from the local authorities should not carry with it a pro rata responsibility for any homelessness in the borough concerned. That would be moral, and it could be incorporated in our amendment.

Mr. Winnick: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but the Under-Secretary of State will do no such thing because she has no instructions to do so from the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. One cannot imagine the people at a Thursday Cabinet meeting being concerned about the


plight of the homeless or discussing what should be done to help people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and those living in cardboard boxes. On 30 November, when the Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he said in effect that the only way in which rented accommodation could be provided was through the privately rented sector. In other words, if one buys bread or other food in a private market, why should not one obtain rented accommodation in the same way?

Mr. Morgan: When the Prime Minister came here at 8.15 this morning, it was not to give the Secretary of State advice about the problems of the homeless but to ask him to go back to St. James's park with her because she had noticed another rising tide of rubbish and intended to do as President Kennedy did in August 1961 and assert her moral leadership of the western world with the ringing words, "Ich bin ein bin-liner."

Mr. Winnick: I cannot improve on that. My hon. Friend sums up the situation very well.
The Prime Minister is keen to take credit for what she regards as her position as a senior statesman on the international scene, while a quarter of a mile from her official residence people have to sleep in cardboard boxes. Things would be different if the Government really cared about the homeless and those who, like so many of my constituents, are not technically homeless but have to live at the top of high-rise blocks with young families. Nowadays, even those with two children have almost no chance of being offered a council house. At one time, people with two children stood a chance. I have already described the shocking and tragic plight of people bringing up families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but there are also thousands trying to bring up children in top-floor flats when they clearly need houses. Why should they have to wait for years on end to reach the top of the list?
One cannot blame the local authorities. They are not in a position to build houses, and so much public sector accommodation is being sold off. The situation will be exacerbated when more public sector accommodation is transferred to housing action trusts. One cannot blame the local authorities for the plight of all those people, whether they be in the west midlands or in London.
By definition, those people cannot obtain mortgages. If they could, their problems would be eased so long as they kept up the payments. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there is some consensus between the two sides of the House in that both accept that a substantial minority of people require rented accommodation. The crucial difference, which lies at the heart of this debate, is that the Opposition believe that the needs of those people can be satisfied adequately only by local authority accommodation or genuine housing associations whereas the arch-Thatcherite Secretary of State believes that they can be satisfied only by the private sector and at market rents.
As the advertisements show, market rents in London or even the midlands are not £60 or £70 per week but more like £200 per week for a flat, let alone a house. Meanwhile, housing benefit is being drastically reduced. Anyone who can afford that kind of market rent can obtain a mortgage, with tax relief. We are concerned about the people who cannot afford market rents, but I detect no such concern

from the Conservatives. The Government have not explained how the needs of those people will be satisfied by accommodation at market rents and the tenancy arrangements set out in the Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is clear, and it has been set out with characteristic eloquence by my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle and for Brent, South.

Mr. Boateng: Charismatic.

Mr. Winnick: I would certainly describe both my hon. Friends in that way, though I plead not guilty to the charge myself, despite the fact that lack of charisma is almost a cardinal sin in politics these days. I do not make late-night telephone calls to Chris Moncrieff—I simply carry out my duties in the Chamber when necessary at that hour, along with my hon. Friends.
The amendment will place responsibility on housing action trusts to ensure that, in co-operation with local authorities, they assist the homeless. Originally, of course, there was no such provision in the Bill. Housing action trusts were to have no responsibility for the homeless. To some extent, the Government have recognised our argument, because they moved an amendment in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said when he moved his amendment, the amendment that the Government moved in Committee adds nothing of substance, because it is so vague. At the end of the day, housing action trusts will be free of any responsibility. They will simply tell local housing authorities, "We have taken your request into consideration; we have noted it," and that is all. We want to ensure that, in practice, housing action trusts are responsible for the homeless.
As my hon. Friend said—he has not been challenged by any Conservative Members—in the first stage, the purpose of housing action trusts is to take accommodation from local authorities, manage it for two or three years at most, and then send it to the privately rented sector, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, it will simply be sold off. If it is to be sold off, or if it is to go to the privately rented sector ar market rents, how on earth will that help the people whom we are debating—the homeless, whether they are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or sleeping in cardboard boxes?
When he raised a point of order, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked you, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that at no stage were Opposition Members filibustering. You said that everything that was said by Opposition Members during the long hours of the debate was perfectly in order. I am pleased that you confirmed that. The last thing that we want to do on an issue that is so crucial to our present and future constituents who desperately need housing accommodation is to filibuster to prolong matters. We do not do that, least of all on such a crucial matter.
I ask those who challenge our sincerity and say that our words are mere rhetoric to state the three dominant domestic issues that the Labour movement has been concerned about from day one: the right to work, decent accommodation and adequate health. Those three major issues have dominated our political lives and those of our predecessors. They are crucial to our very being as Labour politicians. We feel strongly about the right to work. No one should be denied the right to work, decent accommodation and decent health services—hence our defence of the National Health Service. That is why my


hon. Friends and I entered politics. Why else? It was not to sit in the House of Commons or to become a councillor at an early age or at any other age. It was to serve our community in the best way possible.
I suppose that all hon. Members have resolved their housing matters. Most of us own our accommodation and are able to pay off a mortgage. We want benefit for the people whom we represent, because we believe that we have a duty and responsibility to ensure it.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will recognise that my hon. Friend's amendment is reasonable. As I have said, the Government have recognised that some of our arguments are valid, or presumably they would not have moved their amendment in Committee. We are extending it a little further. However well-intentioned it was—if it was well-intentioned—the Government's amendment does not mean much, and it will not mean much to housing action trusts that take the view that they should have no responsibility for the homeless. They will simply say, "This is the law. We have looked at the matter, and we are satisfied that we cannot do anything." At least the amendment goes some way—but only some way—to ensure that housing action trusts have adequate regard for the homeless.
We are not in favour of housing action trusts. It would be foolish of us to argue otherwise. The Minister and her ministerial colleagues know how strongly we are against housing action trusts. But, to the extent that they will come into existence, because of the Government's majority there will be no rebellion here or in another place. We shall have housing action trusts for as long as this Government survive. Surely we are not asking too much. For goodness, sake, the Government should at least ensure that such undemocratic organisations do not play any role in housing. If they are to be brought into existence, let us ensure that they have some responsibility to help the homeless.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has always spent a great deal of his time talking about housing. Over many years, Opposition Members have listened carefully to what he has said when he represented Croydon, Central and, later on, part of Walsall. We could never accuse him of being naive. However, towards the end of his good speech, he pleaded with the Government to wreck their own Bill. That is roughly what he said. There is no chance at all of this Government accepting our amendment. As my hon. Friend said, they do not care about the homeless. They do not care about those who live in cardboard boxes at Charing Cross; they are not worried about them. They will not wreck the housing action trusts that are the embodiment of the Bill. That is where money will be made. People like Peter Clowes will be able to make a small fortune out of business expansion schemes allied to housing action trusts.
Although my hon. Friend is doing a great job—I hope that he gets the publicity he needs—the Government will not shift on this matter; there is no doubt about that. I hope that my hon. Friend will point out to the Government that we shall drag the Bill right through tonight and beyond to prove to the outside world that Opposition Members will fight tooth and nail today and, if necessary, tomorrow to support the homeless and all those who are looking for a roof over their heads.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend deserves a reply. I value any compliments from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I regard as a personal friend. He gave a potted history of my political life or career, as the case may be, and I appreciate that. He was perfectly right to say that I take a close interest in housing. He argued—perhaps realistically—that the Government will not undermine their own Bill. Like my hon. Friend. having been an hon. Member since the Government came to office, and being totally without illusions, I know that the Government are not concerned about ordinary people. They are dedicated to the interests of the rich and most prosperous in our community. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover recognises that I have no doubts or illusions.
I said that the Government made some movement in Committee. They at least recognised, whether well-intentioned or otherwise, what we have been arguing for a long time on this issue. If the Government do what my hon. Friend has predicted and refuse to accept the amendment, they will strengthen what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has said. I said that we recognise that we cannot stop the Bill. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We spent a long time on this measure on Tuesday. It may well be that Tuesday will be with us for many hours to come. I am pleased that you confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that we have not been filibustering. We have been trying to illustrate the problems of the people about whom we are worried.
4 pm
If the Minister refuses to acknowledge our arguments, it will confirm our worst fear: that the housing action trusts will be unconcerned about the homeless and that the Government will not give those organisations any responsibility for the people who live, sometimes with their families, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Without wishing to be personal, I imagine that the Minister has a family and has managed to ensure financially that they will not be brought up in such dire circumstances.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are always telling us that great economic progress has been made and that Britain is a prosperous country. At every opportunity, they boast about our economic success and say that Britain is doing wonderfully well. If we are doing so well, why must people live in the circumstances that my hon. Friends and I have been describing? If accommodation is taken from the control of local authorities and is given to housing action trusts, unless those trusts have some responsibility for the homeless, local authorities will be put in an even worse position than they are in now. That is why this reasonable amendment should be supported.

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and quoted some German from President Kennedy. I lived in Germany for a couple of years, and I have obtained a copy of Harrap's Concise German dictionary. My hon. Friend quoted President Kennedy as saying, "Ich bin ein Berliner." The dictionary says that that means, "I am a doughnut." What President Kennedy meant to say was, "Ich bin Berliner." By using the indefinite article, my hon. Friend has given an historically inaccurate definition.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that has anything to do with the Housing Bill.

Mr. McCartney: I shall make a short contribution to the debate, especially in respect of the work that I do on behalf of the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority.
There is a link between homelessness and houses in multiple occupation. In most urban areas where local authorities cannot provide hostel or other accommodation for the homeless, many young people and families end up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or, worse, in houses of multiple occupation. The stress and pressure placed on the housing market mean that, almost daily, horrendous fires cause serious and sometimes fatal accidents. In some cases, entire families have been incinerated. That has happened because of the housing crisis and because of short-term measures taken to place families in houses of multiple occupation. Those premises are totally unsuitable and unacceptable, and the inability of local authorities to police housing arrangements has led to major fires.
Within the past two months, a homeless family placed in such a unit in Blackpool was destroyed completely. Days later, it was followed by another fire in the midlands. The Government recognise that it is a major problem. The Department of the Environment has received a survey showing that the crisis is deepening and that it is claiming many lives.
Recently the Department of the Environment conducted a postal survey, to which 96 per cent. of local authorities responded. It asked for information about the condition and location of houses in multiple occupation. It found that 40 per cent. of properties had inadequate means of escape from a fire and that 38 per cent. of properties required additional means of escape from fire. Thirty three per cent. of properties required major repairs and 28 per cent. required additional amenities and facilities for the families placed in them. In all, 162,862 properties were found to be physically unsatisfactory.

Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend may wish to consider the fact that there are other hazards for homeless people. Some Bengali families have been forced by Tower Hamlets council to sleep in church halls. One mother who has two sick children is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Some people have been placed in John Scurr house, where the rent is —100 a week, but the estate is semi-derelict and people are afraid to go outside at night because it is an ideal place for them to be attacked.
Housing action trusts will be a close parallel to the urban development corporations from which we have suffered in Tower Hamlets. The London Docklands development corporation has encouraged house prices to rise and land prices to spiral, and it is clear that in a few years' time, or perhaps sooner, housing action trusts will force huge increases in rents and a great increase in homelessness.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has highlighted some of the problems of the homeless, and I hope that other hon. Members will mention them during the debate.
The Home Office has received statistical confirmation and evidence from fire authorities that the pressure of homelessness means that local authorities must use totally unsatisfactory houses in which to place homeless families.

That places them in the moral danger to which my hon. Friend referred, and in physical danger, and some families have perished as a result.
The Department of the Environment report entitled "Houses in Multiple Occupation in England and Wales" shows that local authorities have had to take action against 3,853 landlords who have not provided adequate means of escape from fire, 2,268 landlords regarding the provision of extra amenities, and 897 landlords because of overcrowding. That shows the crisis among homeless families, yet in many areas housing action trusts will take out of the public sector the housing stock required to move families out of those dangerous conditions and into adequate homes.
Recently the Home Office provided statistics on the nature of fires and the number of deaths. It makes harrowing reading. For example, in detached and semi-detached houses in multiple occupation, some 77 people have perished—two because of cooking appliance fires, as a result of the cramped nature of the property, 16 because of fires from space heating appliances, four from matches, 29 from other ignitable materials and another 26 as a result of an unknown or unspecified type of ignition source.
In other dwellings of multiple occupation there were some 13,000 fires, in which 180 people perished and 1,828 suffered serious but non-fatal casualties. Some 4,385 fires are caused by cooking appliances, 793 by space heating appliances and 2,555 through matches and other ignitable sources. One could go on and on with such lists, and many such injuries and deaths are because the families have no means of escape. Such deaths could be prevented. They occur because families are in dreadful housing as a result of the housing crisis and the inability to provide homeless people with adequate, safe and secure homes to rent either on a long-term or short-term basis.
The Government must, as a matter of urgency, face up to this crisis. It is one thing creating a situation in which homelessness causes danger but another to continue such a situation with the result that people are dying simply because they are homeless. If all those 77 people died in one incident, there would be a national crisis, but because they were single incidents happening on a regular basis, in ones, twos, threes and fours, there is no such publicity.
The stark reality is that we are talking about the possibility that on each day of the year, there is the potential for one person or one family to die as a result of being declared homeless and placed in a multi-occupation house. It is unacceptable that children below school age should run the risk of incineration simply because parents are homeless and they are placed in temporary accommodation. It is unacceptable that, when the Government have these figures as a result of their own survey, they are still not prepared to take action to protect people. They must either provide local authorities with the resources to take these families out of multi-occupation properties or provide within the Bill the facilities for HATs and local authorities to work together in areas of multi-occupation systematically to get rid of such accommodation. Without such positive action, working people's families will continue to die and people will be maimed for life at an early age simply because their parents were homeless.
Such a dreadful situation would not have been accepted' in 1888, and we should not allow it to continue in 1988. The Minister must tell us what action, irrespective of the


clause, she will take to prevent fire deaths among the homeless, because they have reached crisis proportions. Perhaps she will be able to provide us with the latest information, because these statistics are not up to date. This year's statistics are not yet available, but I believe, because of what has happened in Blackpool and elsewhere, and what happened with polyurethane foam in January, February, March and April, there will have been an increase in the number of fires in houses in multi-occupation, and an increase in fatal fires.
Many in Committee I asked the Minister to give us an adequate response to the issues that we had raised. On this issue of deaths among the homeless, she owes it to the House, to the homeless and to the country at large to give us the Government's response to this tale of carnage. All of us have children or know members of our family with children. Why should someone else's child die because the family is homeless? That is unacceptable, and the Minister must respond to it.

Mrs. Roe: In Committee we discussed at length how HATs could work alongside local authorities in helping to deal with the homeless. We responded to Opposition concerns by introducing clause 65. Amendment No. 88 now seeks to go over that old ground by imposing a statutory requirement on HATs which we do not consider to be necessary. As we explained in Committee, we believe that many of the estates where the Secretary of State may decide to seek parliamentary approval to designate HAT areas are places where few would choose to live of their own free choice, where the problems have proved beyond the capacity of local authority management to solve and, therefore, where there are a large number of empty properties. The key contribution which we could make in part III to alleviate homelessness with HATs is to bring back into use stock that is lying empty. I say to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) that we care, but we do not just talk about caring, we do something about it.

Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: Not just yet.
I do not wish to debate yet again the local authorities' role in dealing with homelessness, but let me just repeat a few facts. First, this year the housing capital programme has been increased to £3,827 million, £365 million up on earlier plans—a 9·5 per cent. increase. We have also given local authorities additional resources totalling £53 million in the past six months.

Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: No, but I will give way when I have completed these points.
Secondly, there are 112,000 council properties standing empty, and a quarter of those have been empty for over a year. At 1 April 1987, there were some 27,000 empty dwellings in London, and that is nearly three times as many as the number of homeless families. Thirdly, there is no restriction on the use of accumulated capital receipts for capitalised repairs. Fourthly, authorities not taking

advantage of the absence of these restrictions are Camden and Fulham which, at 1 April 1987, had over £60 million in accumulated receipts.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has suggested that the Government have been starving housing associations of resources, but nothing could be further from the truth. We have increased the Housing Corporation's approved development programme from £705 million in 1987–88 to £737 million in 1988–89, and we are further increasing this provision to £850 million by 1990–91.

Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way in her catalogue of the Government's generosity to local authorities, but will she bear one thing in mind when she returns to it? Only a few weeks ago in Southampton, the hon. Lady specifically singled out the London borough of Brent for praise for its work for the homeless. In 1986–87—these are the figures in that catalogue—we were given £22 million for housing allocation. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, "we"—we, the people of Brent whom I represent here and for whom I am putting questions to the Minister; we, the ratepayers and the taxpayers. In 1986–87, we received £22 million. The next year it dropped to £18·7 million—a further reduction in real terms of 20 per cent. compared with the previous year. However, the borough had increased its estimate of essential repair costs to £154 million. The result was a 20 per cent. cut and a substantial increase in repair costs. How does that square with the Minister's picture of generosity to boroughs such as the one that I seek to represent?

Mrs. Roe: Brent council is one of the recipients of the estates action programme. I remind the hon. Gentleman that £140 million of the Department's estates action programme resources have been made available in 1988–89 to turn around the rundown local authority estates and to make empty estate properties available for the homeless. I have visited some of the estates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I know that a very good job has been done in that area.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My constituents and I are glad to know that, following her visit to my constituency, my hon. Friend has singled it out to become part of the revitalisation service. I understand that the first public meeting will be held in July. It is hoped to have a housing action trust within the service. That will do a great deal to revitalise an area in my constituency which has been giving cause for concern for a number of years.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Mrs. Roe: I shall give way a little later in my speech.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for her intervention. I enjoyed my visit to her constituency.
Local authorities will retain their overall responsibilities towards the homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985. In most instances, it is likely that HATs will be taking over a comparatively small proportion of a local authority's stock. However, because they will become landlords of stock, HATs should be well placed to help local authorities to find accommodation for the homeless.
In Committee, we rejected amendments tabled by Opposition Members that would have imposed on HATs a statutory requirement for them to make available a specific percentage of HAT properties. Amendment No.


88 is more of the same. There is no need to impose such a requirement on HATs when clause 65 makes our intentions clear.
The duty on HATs is exactly the same as that which applies under section 72 of the Housing Act 1985 to local housing authorities, new town corporations, the Commission for the New Towns, registered housing associations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is a duty that requires that, where a local housing authority requests assistance in the discharge of various of its functions under part III of the 1985 Act, the other bodies specified in section 72(1) are required to co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of these functions as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister accept that the difference between the duties on the other authorities and those that impinge on housing action trusts is that the other authorities have not been placed compulsorily in the position of local authorities, which have been forced to hand over their property? Will she accept also that it is somewhat disingenuous of her to say that nothing that was said in Committee suggested that there would be any lessening of local authorities' duties towards the homeless? The hon. Lady says that, but it appears to be clear from one national daily newspaper that in the next Session there is to be legislation to reduce the duties of local authorities towards the homeless. With a reduced housing stock, they will have even less opportunity to carry out their responsibility to house the record number of homeless people.

Mrs. Roe: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. I believe that HATs will help local authorities. I am sure that local authorities will be able to co-operate and will find that their requests will be looked on favourably.
We know that it is common for local authorities to agree nomination arrangements with housing associations, for example, even though authorities are not directly involved in grant-aided schemes that are funded by housing association grant, without any further specific statutory requirement under section 72. We see no reason why there should not be similar co-operation between HATs and local authorities, with clause 65 as the legislative back-up.
There are further safeguards. First, we shall make it clear to HATs in the management guidance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue to them, which will be published, that they will be expected to enter into agreements with local authorities, possibly by means of formal contracts that give local authorities access to stock held by HATs. Secondly, if local authorities were not satisfied with HATs' performance in fulfilling their duties under clause 65, it would be open to them to have recourse to the courts, although legal confrontation is unlikely to be in the best interests of the residents or of the HAT areas. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could use his direction-making power if he considered that HATs were not co-operating sensibly with local authorities.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Minister explain to the House how local authorities can escape facing further and greater difficulties in housing the homeless with a housing stock that is much smaller than it is now?

Mrs. Roe: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I have already covered that argument. In the areas in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be considering to have HATs, we may find that many of the properties will be lying empty. Those properties will be brought back into use. Some of the areas that I have visited during my trips through the country have contained many half-empty properties. It must be good news that we intend to bring all these properties into use.
Against that background, I believe that the Government's response to the concern of Opposition Members is helpful and reasonable. I invite them to withdraw amendment No. 88.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Opposition consider the Minister's response to be unreasonable and unacceptable. It is a complacent response that shows no concern for the homeless, who represent one of the major scandals of our time. The Minister's response is consistent with all the housing myths that the Government have tried to perpetuate as excuses for their lack of action in providing the accommodation that the nation needs in the public sector to help deal with the overall problem of homelessness.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Minister did not allow me to intervene on the estates action programme. There was a good reason for her refusal to give way to me. In Calderdale, we have seen the result of the programme, which is the flagship of the Tories' enterprise scheme. The private sector let us down and we were faced with the demolition of 400 flats and houses. Debt charges are now being paid on empty land on which flats and houses were demolished.

Mr. Roberts: Indeed. The schemes to which the Minister referred, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has commented, are welcome, but they are mere palliatives. They amount to a small sop in local authority areas where housing investment programmes have been cut by massive amounts. The Minister had the audacity to blame local authorities. She added that the estates where HATs will be declared are beyond the capacity of local authorities to manage. They are beyond the capacity of local authorities to deal with adequately because the authorities have been starved of the resources that they need.
The Minister quoted increases in housing capital programmes and referred to small increases this year over last year's figures. In Wolverhampton, for example, there has been an 87·3 per cent. cut in the housing investment programme since 1978–79. Warrington received £15,727,000 in 1978–79 and this year it received £2,378,000. That is an 84 per cent. cut. In Bolsover—unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?" My hon. Friend is normally to be seen in his place. If I were a Conservative Member, I would not welcome him back. In Bolsover, £6,791,000 was made available in 1978–79. It received only £1,063,000 this year. That is an 84 per cent. cut.
The story continues. In Manchester, in 1978–79 but at today's prices, £108 million was made available for the housing investment programme. It received £23 million this year. That was a 78–8 per cent. cut. In Sefton, which is the local authority in my constituency, the HIP in


1978–79 was £90 million. It is now £4,152,000, which is a 78 per cent. cut. In Liverpool the amount was £75 million in 1978–79 and is now £19 million, a 73 per cent. cut. In Bristol, the local authority which the Minister for Housing and Planning represents, in 1978–79 the figure was £32·969 million; today it is £10 million, a 69 per cent. cut. How dare the Government claim that they are increasing housing allocations for capital expenditure when they have been cutting them for nine years? The limited small increases which they quote are what they gave last year.

Mr. Cryer: I hope my hon. Friend will challenge the Minister's assertion that local authorities can take housing action trusts to court if they are dissatisfied with their performance. That would involve a local authority in hundreds of thousands of pounds of expenditure, without any grant aid from the Government. In a sense, that is another cut in local authority expenditure if the local authority wishes to exercise any influence over a housing action trust which is not being helpful. As the Minister would not allow me to intervene, will my hon. Friend ask her why the Government did not produce decent legislation?

Mr. Roberts: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. To suggest that the legislation is satisfactory, and then to suggest that HATs should be taken to court by the local authority if they behave unreasonably, is outrageous. The Government actually suggest that a local authority may have to go to court to ensure that its own housing stock, which has been taken from it, is used to help the homeless.
The Minister reiterated another myth. She said that the way to solve the homelessness problem was to get the local authorities to bring into use all the empty houses in their ownership. I have an honourable record of campaigning to get empty houses in local authority and other ownership into use for homeless families and others. It is a travesty of the truth to suggest that local authorities are guilty of keeping houses empty unnecessarily.
In 1986 there were 111,600 empty local authority houses. In 1987 the number had gone down to 108,600. What about the private sector? The Government intend to hand council housing to the private sector if they can. In 1986 there were 493,000 properties standing empty in the private sector, compared with 111,000 in the public sector; that is nearly four times as many. The number in the private sector is increasing rather than going down. In 1987 in the public sector, 511,000 properties were standing empty. The real problem is caused by the properties standing empty in the private sector. The Government pretend that they are doing something about that; their shorthold provisions in the Housing Act 1980 were to do something about it, but they did not.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall that Government spokesman have often cited the London borough of Newham as an authority not making use of vacant houses? I had a letter from the housing chairman only yesterday in which he told me that the effective vacancy rate in Newham is 3 per cent. and the figure in Wandsworth is 2·8 per cent. Those figures are both lower than the percentage in other sectors. Does this not show

that the hon. Lady's claim is not right, that the visible solution to the homeless problem is to put those properties into use? She must know that.

Mr. Roberts: We want all empty properties to be in use and we want all properties that become vacant in any sector to be occupied as quickly as possible. But even in the owner-occupied sector the turn-round rate of properties which become empty for sale is lower than the turn-round of properties which are relet by local authorities.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is it not the case that many good Labour authorities are giving people three choices of empty properties? When people are offered such a choice, it is unavoidable that there are more vacant properties, because of the way the system works. In the past, some Conservative authorities have offered people only one property on a "take it or leave it" basis. Is that what will happen with the housing action trusts?

Mr. Roberts: One problem with the housing action trust legislation is that we do not know what we shall see, and we do not know what the code of management will be. All we know is that there will not be the same accountability to tenants and to the electorate as there is in local authorities, with all their faults. I do not accept that the Government have already dealt with the contents of our amendment and that they are aware of the need for housing action trusts to assist with homelessness. Their proposals are a recipe for the homeless not to be accepted by HATs.
It is clear from that what my hon. Friends have said in the debate that the Labour party regards this as an important issue. We feel strongly for those in housing need. We have policies to deal with homelessness, which has reached record heights. Last year, there were 112,730 homeless households, the equivalent of about 230,000 men, women and children accepted as homeless by local authorities in England alone. That compares with 53,000 homeless households in England in 1978.
Many more homeless people are not included in the official statistics, because most homeless single people and childless couples are not legally entitled to rehousing. In Great Britain since 1978, when the present homelessness legislation came into force, 800,000 households, most of them families with children, have been accepted by local authorities for rehousing as homeless. That is nearly one in 25 of the population. That is the scale of the problem. About half those who are accepted as homeless are rehoused by councils in permanent accommodation. That is what they use their permanent accommodation for. They fill it as quickly as possible with homeless families but they do not have enough accommodation to offer, because the house building programme has ground to a halt.
Because of the lack of accommodation that local authorities have to offer, homeless people have to stay in temporary accommodation such as hostels, caravans or bed-and-breakfast hotels for months or even years. The numbers in temporary accommodation have been rising, especially over the last few years when Conservative Housing Ministers have been trying to revitalise the free market.
In June 1987 there were 23,000 households in temporary accommodation, double the figure in June 1984. The number living in bed-and-breakfast hotels this June was 11,000, 4,000 more than 12 months ago. Homeless families from ethnic minorities tend to end up in


bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Over 90 per cent. of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are in the south-east of England, where people come to look for work.
The Government have admitted that in Greater London a newly built council house would cost £7,000 in the first year, while acquiring a house in the open market would cost £5,000. The cost of keeping a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is £11,000 a year. That cost keeps rising with inflation and is not falling, like the cost of providing new council housing. What kind of Thatcherite, monetarist economics is that in housing? It does not make sense; it does not add up to anything except a policy of not caring about the homeless.
The homeless are reflected as well in the massive council house waiting lists to which I have already referred. The underlying problem is a shortage of decent housing to rent, estimated at 1·1 million by the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry into British housing. The shortage is greatest for homes to rent, especially council homes. With the proposals for housing action trusts, the stock available for local authorities to rent to homeless families will diminish considerably without the safeguards that we want to write into legislation.
We want housing action trusts to have a duty to consult, to co-operate and to offer a reasonable number of relets to the homeless who need to be rehoused in the local authority area in which the HAT is. That is not a stupid or unnecessary thing to ask for. Anyone who had compassion for the homeless and who was concerned about the homeless would ask for that. We believe that the Government are rejecting our proposals because they do not care about the homeless and, as my hon. Friends have said, because they care about the gentrification of the estates that they are taking over and they do not want their friends who are taking over those estates to be encumbered by any social concern for those in housing need.
The Minister's response was scandalous. As a result of that, and because the Labour party and all Opposition Members feel so strongly about the problem of homelessness and about the homeless, we wish to divide the House on this, one of the most important issues of the Housing Bill, although every issue that we are debating is important.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not keep the House long, but I should like to make two short points that, to my knowledge, have not been mentioned in the debate.
First, if the amendment were carried, it would introduce a new word—"homeless"—into the Bill. As the Minister of State admitted, there was a problem of presentation when the Bill was drafted—the homeless were left out. In 1988, when more than 100,000 families per year present themselves as homeless to local authorities in Britain, and when the number of homeless families has doubled, the Government have presented a Housing Bill which leaves out the homeless altogether. That in itself should be sufficient to make us support the amendment.
There is an argument that, if one is to do anything about the housing problem, one should start by meeting the needs of those who most need help—above all, the homeless.
Secondly, we need to be clear that the amendment seeks to preserve—not even to extend—the present position. The present position is that, if one is homeless and considered as eligible by law, the local council has to do

something to give one a home. The amendment seeks only to make sure that when the property that the council used to own—empty or let—is taken over and handed to new housing action trust landlords, the same percentage of property in those units of accommodation goes to the homeless as it did under council ownership.
The figures up to the end of 1986 for every local authority in England were published in Hansard on 15 July 1987. They show that increasing numbers of properties owned by local authorities have been let to the homeless. Take my own local authority. I am not defending it or pretending that it could not do much better in other areas of housing management. I am arguing the simple case that the figures show that the demand on it to house the homeless has grown ineluctably.
In Southwark in 1981–82, 348 homeless families were housed and 8·3 per cent. of all new lettings were to the homeless. In 1982–83, 409 homeless families were housed, and 15·2 per cent. of all lettings went to the homeless. In 1983–84, the figures were more than double those of the previous year—878 homeless families were housed and 35·5 per cent. of lettings were to the homeless. In 1984–85, there were no figures, because there was a change in statistics in Southwark, as there was in other authorities. In 1985–86, a total of 1,119 families were accepted as homeless by Southwark. It had a duty to house them, and more than 50 per cent. of new lettings owned by Southwark borough council were let to the homeless.
I have reason to believe that since then the figures have continued to grow in a similar way and that now, in Southwark, no new lettings of property go to anyone other than the homeless or to those who have to be moved because of harassment or for personal protection. No one can move because they need a bigger property or a property on the ground floor instead of on an upper floor. They have to be homeless to move, and they have to be homeless to be taken in.
4.45 pm
The figures are similar in other authorities in London and elsewhere. I could go on in some detail, but I shall take only the most acute examples. For the last year in which figures are available, in 1985–86, a total of 68·6 per cent. of all new lettings in Camden went to the homeless. In Greenwich, 54·1 per cent. of new lettings went to the homeless. In Hammersmith and Fulham and in Islington, 61·9 per cent. of new lettings went to the homeless. In Lewisham, 58·6 per cent. of lettings went to the homeless. Even in the City of Westminster and in Wandsworth — Tory-controlled boroughs—the figures continue to be high. In the City of Westminster, 42·7 per cent. and in Wandsworth more than 50 per cent. of lettings went to the homeless. Of course the problem is most acute in London. In the last year for which figures are available, Wandsworth, a Tory-run authority, had to use more than 50 per cent. of its lettings to house the homeless.

Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of accusations, particularly from Conservative Members, that getting on to the homeless list is a quick way of jumping what would otherwise be a long waiting list? Does not the fact that he just mentioned, that Conservative-run Wandsworth has the enormous figure of 50 per cent. of its lettings going to classified homeless people, suggest that that argument, in respect of Wandsworth and probably elsewhere, does not hold water?

Mr. Hughes: Not only do I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have checked three other areas of the country. I shall start with Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, the local authority of the Under-Secretary. For the last year for which figures are available, that authority in the affluent south-east and the home counties allocated more than 30 per cent. of its new lettings to the homeless. The Minister may be able to tell us that the figures have increased since then—that would be quite compatible with other figures. In an area that certainly is not renowned for its problems of social disadvantage, nearly one in three of new lettings by the hon. Lady's local council goes to families who have nowhere else to go.
In Gloucestershire, the home county of the Secretary of State, there are six local councils. In Cheltenham, 17·4 per cent. of lettings go to the homeless. The figure for the Cotswolds local authority is 22·2 per cent., for Forest of Dean the figure is 25·6 per cent. and for Tewkesbury, the Secretary of State's own constituency, the figure is 33·6 per cent.;one third. For Gloucester and for Stroud the figures are 48·2 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively.
Lastly, I thought to look at the county of the Minister for Housing and Planning. Avon has six local authorities. They range from Bristol, with 21·9 per cent. of new lettings going to the homeless, to Bath—hardly poverty-stricken England—where 56·7 per cent. of new lettings go to the homeless.

Ms. Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those whom local authorities accept as homeless are mortgage defaulters who tried to buy their own homes but who ran into trouble and failed?

Mr. Hughes: I entirely accept the hon. Lady's point. A friend of mine, who is a Southwark councillor and a solicitor, speaks for my party on housing matters. She tells me that an increasing percentage of those who come through her door are mortgage defaulters and need help to try to prevent their homes from being taken over, after they have had pressure put on them to buy their homes.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in the local authority that includes my constituency, East Lothian, no fewer than 5 per cent. of council house allocations last year went to people who had lost their homes as a consequence of mortgage default.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not know about that. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is not the kind of place that one imagines as the epitome of the housing crisis in Britain. It is a rural constituency, just north of the border. The statistics show that no area in Britain is exempt from the housing crisis.
Despite having been encouraged by several hon. Members to do so, the Minister did not refer in her speech to the press article which picks up the point that was made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) —that young single people and young married couples are becoming increasingly concerned and frustrated, not surprisingly, about the fact that they cannot obtain local authority housing because the homeless take all that is available. Several young couples come to my advice centre every week and say that they are waiting for housing, but that they are not getting it. They include married couples, certainly those who are planning to be married and those who are engaged. They have no prospect, probably long after they are married, of obtaining accommodation.
The Government now propose, after the proceedings in Standing Committee, that in the next Session of Parliament the legislation relating to homelessness will no longer oblige local authorities to house those who have nowhere else to go. It is reported that the legislation for housing homeless persons that my noble Friend Lord Ross of Newport piloted through the House just over 10 years ago is to be repealed. Homelessness is to be replaced by ruthlessness. A permanent obligation on local authorities is to be replaced by a temporary obligation to take people in for a short period, immediately after they have been thrown out on to the street.
The amendment requires, very simply, that the same percentage of property should remain available for the homeless as was available before the transfer of property. It is not an unreasonable request. If 30, 50 or 60 per cent. of property is being used for housing homeless families in Broxbourne, Bath and central London, it is not unreasonable to ask that that obligation should be retained. Otherwise, that property might be used to accommodate people who can much more easily manage and afford to find their own homes. It is a modest amendment. If the Government reject it, that will be a token of their unwillingness to make even very modest concessions in favour of those who at the moment have nothing and who are asking for but the smallest crumbs.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 260.

Division No. 358]
[4.54 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barron, Kevin
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Tony
Fearn, Ronald


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galbraith, Sam


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Cartwright, John
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Crowther, Stan
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Dr John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Geraint


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)






Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


John, Brynmor
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum A.
Short, Clare


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McTaggart, Bob
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Turner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliott
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Nellist, Dave
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Alun Michael and Mr. Adam Ingram.


Prescott, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Benyon, W.
Burt, Alistair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butler, Chris


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Carttiss, Michael





Cash, William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chapman, Sydney
Knowles, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Churchill, Mr
Lang, Ian


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Critchley, Julian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Price, Sir David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Janman, Tim
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)






Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Lewis
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Yeo, Tim


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. David Maclean.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 66

POWER TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 313, in page 47, line 45, leave out 'person' and insert
'statutory authority or registered charity'.
The amendment relates to the grant-making powers of a HAT. Clause 66(1) says:
For the purpose of achieving its objects a housing action trust may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, give financial assistance to any person.
It sets out the forms in which such assistance may be given.
Amendment No. 313 is a probing one, but I believe that it has probity. Being able to give assistance to any person—admittedly with the consent of the Secretary of State —is a wide power. My hon. Friends will confirm that such power is not given to local authorities. They are subject to strict auditing by the local auditor, despite the fact that they share with a HAT the objective of improving living conditions in an area. The objectives of a HAT go much wider than that. A HAT can do almost anything, as was shown in earlier debates.
Under clause 58(3)(d), a HAT can
carry on any business or undertaking".
I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State or Ministers will agree to allow a HAT to pay money to anyone for doing anything. I should not be quite so naive as to believe that. Nevertheless, the consent of the Secretary of State is obtained not by an open, glasnost process but by writing letters. A local authority, using its more limited powers, must obtain consent from the Secretary of State—a letter is sent, the local authority committee receives an answer and there may be something in a council's minutes to say that the Secretary of State has given consent.
No such conditions apply to a housing action trust. We have heard nothing much about the meetings that the housing action trust will have and we have heard only vaguely about an annual report. Nominated persons in the HAT will have the power to give any person grants—albeit with the consent of the Secretary of State—for very wide

purposes. That is an enormous privilege, and I use that word advisedly. Privilege is something that we prize greatly in this House, but privilege has another side to it, which is responsibility. I suggest that the clause as drafted contains a temptation to irresponsibility.
I speak with some experience because, as everyone knows by now, we have a sort of housing action trust in the London area. We have a quango called the London Docklands development corporation. We are now being asked to form heaven knows how many other, smaller quangos in different parts of the country. From what we heard in the last debate, it appears that even Broxbourne may be a candidate for a HAT, surprising though it may be to hear that that part of Hertfordshire has a problem of homelessness.
The Government are usually very worried about public expenditure. They were worried to the tune of £4 billion, which they doled out to well-off people. As we know from the Prime Minister's rather nasty replies last week, when it comes to people on social security and to pensioners, the Government are as tight as tight can be. The clause allows housing action trusts to give away money to more or less anybody for anything, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. We must ask for what purpose they will give it away.
Unfortunately—I was not present for the debate—I understand that, since I tabled the amendment, or around the same time, the Government have tabled their own amendments to the effect that a list of persons to whom money has been given will be published at the end of the year. Perhaps the amendment appears in another group. That amendment has been tabled and discussed since I tabled mine, but that does not detract from the probing nature of my amendment.
There is a risk that a dependent society may arise. The Government are all against a dependent society. They tell us that they are against dependency, whatever that is, when it is municipally funded or when it is funded by the Department of Health and Social Security. They will have to shell out an awful lot more on the homeless as they increasingly fall out of the bottom of the housing market, and on those who get into debt. There is not an hon. Member who does not receive almost daily through his letter box inducements to get into debt, from banks and many others.
Let us consider the powers available to the HATs. As we know, they have the power to dispose of property and
I believe that the HATs will promote a dependent attitude because of the example of the London Docklands development corporation in east London, where little money is available from local authorities.
Sports organisations, youth organisations, old people's organisations and advice organisations are all having their grants cut and cut again, sometimes to the extent that they cease to operate. Then the LDDC comes along and hands out money here, there and everywhere—for a sports kit for a primary school, a presentation to an old persons' club or for the increased architectural merit of a new school. In each case, "by courtesy of the LDDC" will be posted up. It is well known that if one wants money in east London one tries the LDDC.
5.15 pm
It is all public money, but it is not being disbursed by an accountable elected authority. We know the LDDC's record. It has repeatedly been pointed out how much a housing action trust will resemble an urban development corporation. HATs will be seen as bodies to which to apply for money, because they will have a lot of it. That will give them power—the power of patronage and to be the squirearchy of the area.
I am not suggesting that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be called upon to be a member of a housing action trust, because you are in this House. But imagine being invited to be the chairman or chief executive of a housing action trust. I know how such people operate, because I have seen them. Everywhere they go, people doff their caps almost because these functionaries, nominees of the Secretary of State, can hand out £10,000 here and £100,000 there in east London. They do so all the time. That is a reversion to another age, although the genuine squirearchy used their own money. The characters in the HATs will hand out our money.
I do not impugn their integrity. I am merely saying that the Government have set up in law a thoroughly 19th-century arrangement. We know how Victorian the Prime Minister can be when she chooses, although it is all Victorian vice and very little Victorian virtue. The Labour party is a Victorian organisation, but a virtuous one.

Ms. Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the LDDC is virtually a dictatorship in docklands and that the housing action trusts will be another form of dictatorship? Consider the problems that there have been with the management of the LDDC—the members of the executive and the executive officers. Will there be an equal amount of bumbling in the boards of the bodies that will control vast amounts of public money in housing? Will we see an equally sad lack of help for those in need in the area?

Mr. Spearing: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. We cannot be certain that the animal will work in that way, but from my experience of the jumbo animal, the little jumbos will probably work in the same way. I say that for one reason alone: it is human nature. I do not think that there is a single hon. Member, however to the Left or the Right of the spectrum he may be, and however moral according to the Prime Minister's precepts, who, given the power to hand out such sums almost on the nod, would not be tempted. I am told that in the LDDC three or four people meeting in secret decide these matters. I suggest not that there would be subversion—that is a strong term—but that the members of the HATs would tend to be a little casual in dealing with these matters.
I do not believe that such a way of going about things is in the best tradition of British public administration. I am not so sure that it is in any traditions of British public administration, of which the Government constantly say they are in favour. It is an invitation to temptation. I do not question the integrity of future members of a HAT, its chief executive or chairman, but they will be in a position to hand out substantial sums for a wide range of purposes that are only indirectly related to the operation of the trust.
Clause 58 says that HATs may
acquire, hold, manage, reclaim and dispose of land … carry out building and other operations; … carry on any business

or undertaking: and may generally do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of those objects and powers or for purposes incidental thereto."
They could assist people to move. A HAT would undoubtedly find it profitable to assist people to buy their homes elsewhere, as the capital gain on sale of the HAT property would be considerable. If the Treasury did not want the money, the Secretary of State might. Indeed, the Secretary of State might direct a HAT to do that.
Some may say that that is going a bit far, but not at all. About one year ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he wanted the LDDC to make as much profit as possible from increased land values, so that he could help fund dockland development corporations in other parts of the country. I think that he may have softened his tune a little, because he now understands the needs of people in east London. His attitude is, however, only slightly different now, and if he can do that for the LDDC, a HAT could operate in the same way.
People may be glad to take the money made available to them to move. I can imagine people vacating nice property in my constituency which the HAT could dispose of at an enormous capital gain. Indeed, I think that that has already happened in the Isle of Dogs.

Ms. Gordon: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is nodding in agreement. Her local authority is operating in that direction, and the Bill will speed up the process.
The Minister may wish to comment on my suppositions. If she can deny them, I will be pleased. I am one of those who believe that there is a hidden agenda. Much of the Government's legislation has a hidden purpose, which may be discerned by spotting its salient features. The Minister for Housing and Planning, whom we welcome back, may not be enthusiastic about that approach, but I am sure that those who were responsible for the genesis of HATs were.
That approach was given a boost by all that stuff about the Walker plan a fortnight ago. We were told that council tenants are to be offered their own premises not at half price but at virtually no price. That has not appeared in the Bill, but what is to prevent HATs from being vehicles for that process? Nothing. They can dispose of land. It does not have to be at market price. If there is anything to prevent it, perhaps the Minister, if she knows about it, will tell me. What is to prevent HATs from becoming "mini-Walker sales bodies"?

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has introduced the English Secretary of State for Wales into the equation and said that there is an element of Victorian values here. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the Secretary of State for Wales, the role of the LDDC and the possibility of HATs, what we are talking about is neo-colonialism? Good and worthy people are going out and doing their good works during the day and retreating to their leafy suburbs for the night. The only thing that they probably do not carry with them that the colonialists did is a Bible to tame the heathen savages

Mr. Spearing: There are elements of that, but my hon. Friend reminds me of when an Austrian radio commentator came to my constituency to look at what was happening in docklands, as there was some rehabilitation


and rejuvenation in some Austrian towns. He was appalled and said, "Mr. Spearing, what is happening here is a takeover by an imperial power."
The Secretary of State for Wales has put forward his plan. It could operate well with HATs. There is nothing to say that the plan is confined to areas that are absolutely physically rundown. Clause 55 tells us that among the factors which the Secretary of State has to bear in mind is the extent to which housing is occupied, its physical state and design, the area it is in and any need to repair or improve it. It does not say that the housing has to be in a bad state. It can be in jolly good state. The more we examine the matter, the more possibilities emerge and the more we are worried.
As I said earlier, the best Victorian virtues are very good. They are the ones which the Prime Minister pretends to practise, but in fact she practises only Victorian vices. We can take the example of the Division which took place not very long ago. It was about the homeless. The word "homeless" does not appear in the Bill. For how many hours have we discussed it? What sort of Housing Bill is this which does not mention the homeless when, even in leafy Broxbourne, 15 per cent. of the people having to be housed by the council are homeless? That is the sort of Victorian vice that we know all about. The subject was explored in the excellent play by Galsworthy that we saw recently on television. It was about a man of integrity who was wholly out of tune with his time.
Why should there not be a list confining assistance to statutory authorities and registered charities? If somebody wished to avail himself of a HAT's largesse, he could form a small local charity which acts as a second tier. That often happens in other areas. That would avoid any suspicion of a conveyor belt taking public money to people who do not need it. I await the Minister's reply, but I fear that it will not be very satisfactory.

Mr. Morley: One would have thought that, when framing legislation, the Government would consider the problems being experienced in housing and try to alleviate local authorities' difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has advanced a strong argument, and said that we do not know how much money HATs will have, where it will go and who will control it. If we are to have organisations with spare money to dole out, I should have thought that the Government would consider meeting housing need. One group that I wish to bring to the Government's attention is the young single homeless. If financial support is to be possible, why cannot some of it go towards counselling and support services for such people?
We all know that the crisis of the young single homeless will increase when the poll tax is introduced as many families with children aged over 18 who live at home will find it difficult to carry the burden of poll tax. There is, therefore, a danger that yet more young people will be shoved out on to the streets, where they will join the many who are already wandering around. Local authorities have no statutory responsibility to house the young single homeless unless they are considered to be at some special risk.
Therefore, if funds are to be made available to the HATs, I hope that they will consider such groups, which

have been ignored for many years by housing authorities. I do not blame local authorities—they have enough to do as it is to meet the increasing demands that are made on them. Although they are sensitive to the needs of the young single homeless, and of other groups such as single parents, they find it difficult, within their budgets and facilities, to meet those needs and make accommodation available.
5.30 pm
That brings me to the accountability of the housing action trusts. The lack of accountability has been mentioned. It is amazing that the Government seem to think that lack of accountability in housing is more desirable than accountability of local authorities, which know local needs and local issues, and can direct their attention to areas of stress and need, rather than to have a quango that may not be closely associated with the area.

Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read "The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists". I was reminded of the council carving up little bits. They were suspect elected representatives.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right, and "The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists" is compulsory reading for all Socialists. There is a danger of such a carve-up and a lack of accountability. The clause also introduces the danger of patronage in how the money will be doled out. It worries me that the Government assume that the housing action trusts will be more responsive to local needs.
In my constituency, the local council has embarked on a radical scheme, in co-operation with building societies and English Heritage, to modernise steel workers' ironstone cottages, which are part of the local historic tradition. That will not only preserve that heritage but provide useful two-bedroomed accommodation. The local authority has not had difficulty getting the scheme off the ground, but the Government have prevaricated in the negotiations between the authority and the building societies, placing the scheme in doubt. That does not give me a great deal of confidence about any independence of the housing action trusts and their meeting local needs any more efficiently than the local council.
What will happen to any housing stock that is handed over to housing action trusts? I return to the single homeless. My local council recently modernised a pre-war block of flats in Queensway, the idea being that the accommodation should be for couples and single people. I wonder whether the same priority will be given by a housing action trust that finds a similar block of flats. The trust may find it useful for yuppification and dispose of the property, possibly for profit.
Make no mistake, those ripples of yuppification are spreading out of London as far north as my constituency, where yuppies from London are looking for bijou boltholes in Scunthorpe. Believe me, I would rather have a bijou bolthole in Scunthorpe than live in docklands any day. I say that from the bottom of my heart.
That trend has the undesirable consequence of forcing up the price of local property and puts yet more pressure on young people who want to leave home and, in many cases, have to leave home. Such young people want a start on the housing ladder and to find somewhere to live.
There does not seem to be any direction for the money that is being made available to HATs. I should like money


to go to local authorities, where it could be controlled by democratically elected and accountable people. It could be directed towards need, not greed, rather than being doled out in the spirit of paternalistic 19th century patronage.
We should face such issues. I know very well that the Government will not accept the amendment, because they do not care about issues such as I am raising. But Opposition Members intend to pursue those matters in great detail because many people face considerable stress and are in great need. I want to highlight the needs of young single parents and single-parent families, who are only one group of many.

Ms. Primarolo: My hon. Friend mentioned single young people. In Bristol, of 14,000 people who are able to register on the housing waiting lists, almost two thirds are couples—[Interruption.] I believe that there should be just one debate in the Chamber. I appreciate that hon. Members talk in the Chamber, but sometimes the noise is so loud that it distracts others.
Nearly two thirds of the 14,000 people on the waiting lists in Bristol are single people and childless couples. In 1985, the city council projected, on the basis of the census, that in Bristol we should need to build accommodation for single people only to account for the demographic changes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is where the money should be directed, not into property speculation through HATS.

Mr. Morley: I thank my hon. Friend, who has put her finger on the issue by identifying where any resources should go. It is a sad reflection of the trends in our society that there are more single parents. That is a growing group, as the Government know, because of the stresses and strains on marriages and the increasing divorce rate. There are also stresses and strains on the family unit. Increasing numbers of young people have to leave home for all sorts of reasons, not least to look for work in other areas.
That is why I argue that the Government are not giving enough attention to the single person, the young single person and single parents. If money is to be made available to the housing action trusts, it should be directed in a logical and accountable way towards meeting people's needs, and not simply be a paternalistic backhander from the Government to the HATs.

Mr. McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who, in an assiduous manner—displayed these past 24 hours—has extracted the hidden agenda of the HAT proposals.
After the debates in Committee, I believe that there is a danger of what can be described only as a slush fund. The Under-Secretary is yawning once again, but she and the Minister of State made it clear that HATs were about transferring millions and sometimes multi-million sums of public assets to unelected organisations with a responsibility for disposing of those assets. The profit from the disposal of the assets would go to the national Exchequer, not back to the local community, which built up the assets in the first place. In the legislation, we are seeing the possible preparation of a slush fund.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) have both referred to a hidden agenda,

which seems to be obscured from the Under-Secretary. Will my hon. Friend speculate as to why the hon. Lady has not been told about it?

Mr. McCartney: The whole Bill has been somewhat obscure to the Under-Secretary—I am not being nasty when I say that. One can only speculate on the number of notes passed between the unknown civil servants and the Minister and come to the conclusion that the Secretary of State has not told her what the Bill is about. The Minister was in such a state that she had to go to Finland for a rest. She is back now—

Mr. Tony Banks: Looking like a sherbert lemon.

Mr. McCartney: Yes, but I would not have said that. I hope that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest.
We can only surmise about Government policy. For example, through the Greater London council and so on, the Government virtually handed over to Thamesmead plc lock, stock and barrel, the housing assets of the estates, the land and the derelict land. It has now become clear that the derelict land holding of Thamesmead plc is worth about £300 million. That has been stripped from the public purse.
The Government's intentions as to financial assistance are not clear. We do not know where the money will come from. Will it be money that has accrued from the sale of public assets? Will it be additional grant from the Department of the Environment? Will the housing action trusts be able to claim aid? Will they be able to claim money from the Manpower Services Commission? Will they be able to claim money from other public sources? Will it simply be money accrued from the sale of public assets, to be disbursed without any accountability?
I am curious to know why the Government have included in the Bill the words "any person." In a local authority, the district auditor would take action. I can give an example of that. During the miners' strike, in the Wigan metropolitan council we used certain sections of the Local Government Act 1986. We used the product of a penny rate to assist families in need. We helped the children and wives of miners with food and emergency payments. The district auditor ruled that the payments were not legal. Repayments have continued since the end of the strike and will continue until everything has been repaid. That is the public's perception of a local authority assisting families in need.
The Bill allows public assets to be stripped and the profits disbursed without public accountability. I could understand that if there were to be community centres, advice agencies, centres for the unemployed, tenants' associations, meals on wheels or pre-school nursery groups within the community covered by the HAT. I could understand it if the HAT was providing assistance—albeit, as has been said, in a colonialist way. In some instances such organisations would be registered charities and would be recognised by the community for the work they have done.
Will the HATs be like a bank allowing the sale of the property, organising mortgage arrangements and assisting with repairs and rehabilitation so that the property can be resold on the open market? What is the nature of the assistance to be given? In disposing of the assets, will


financial assistance be given to those to whom the assets are disposed? It is important that the Minister clarifies the position.
In areas where HATs may be set up, the public are worried about what will happen to their property and community. Local authorities which are under threat from HATs are entitled to know whether the profits from their assets will be given to others inside or outside the community.
It is important to know that, because HATs will have other functions, particularly in relation to environmental health. Is it intended that the money be used to pump-prime houses in the private sector or for repair grants or other refurbishments? If the money is used for that purpose, will the local authority have its grant reduced because that money will be taken into account when considering the overall level of spending on refurbishing and repair grants?

Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend agree, apart from the points that he has eloquently outlined and with which I agree, that there is another potential problem with HATs? If they remove a substantial chunk of public sector housing, if the authority wishes to undertake estate renovation or whole-street renovation, it will be difficult to find empty properties so as to decant the tenants. To lose a substantial amount of property will hold up whole-house developments or large-scale developments of older housing stock.

Mr. McCartney: That goes back to the arguments that some of us were putting in relation to the grounds for eviction and whether ground for possession is the rehabilitation of a property. We discussed the position of the tenure being offered to new tenants within the HAT.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend asked a question that may have been rhetorical or actual and may have been for the Minister or the world in general. The answer is part of the hidden agenda. Clause 58 says:
The primary objects of a housing action trust in relation to the designated area for which it is established shall be—

(a) to secure the repair or improvement of housing accommodation for the time being held by the trust".
I emphasise the words "for the time being". That implies that it is transitional and that the power is to be used for the sale of properties.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not part of the hidden agenda. That was clearly the position of the Minister. The Minister made it clear that we are talking about a transitional period of, say, five years. The job of the HAT will be to move in, take over the public sector stock, have it revalued and then make its decisions as to whether the stock and assets are to be sold to the private sector as they stand or after they have been refurbished, or whether they are to be offered to sitting tenants. This is a massive asset-stripping job. It is probably one of the largest asset-stripping jobs in the privatisation programme.
The first HATs are only a lead-in and provide a learning process for the Government on the best way to get rid of public sector accommodation. Conservative Members have occasionally muttered a few comments

about the Bill. They and the Ministers have made it clear that local authorities are no longer seen as providers of housing. They are there to deal with aspects such as homelessness and to maintain a register for the homeless, registers for the transfer of tenancies, and other things that cost money in terms of administration costs and with which the Government do not want to lumber HATs.
We are dealing with a slush fund. We are debating whether that slush fund is for short-term gain in terms of HATs promoting their image within the community, or for facilitating the rapid sale of the properties and land within the confines of the HAT. The Minister will have to tell us what will happen to derelict land. I have already said that Thamesmead has £300 million—worth of derelict land. Will the HAT be able to claim derelict land grant, or will the money replace the grant?

Mr. George Howarth: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the ability of any housing authority to obtain derelict land grant for housing development was taken away last year. In fact, I believe that the last such grant was made in my own constituency. So that option will not be open.

Mr. McCartney: That highlights my point about selling assets to the private sector and then giving it the resources to use the land for its own purposes, whether to create something for the community or purely to make profits. In many areas, especially in the north of England and in parts of industrial Wales, north-east England and London, huge tracts of derelict land are available as a natural resource and massive profits can be made overnight through speculation and transfers of ownership. A major example is the way in which the docklands development has transferred derelict land assets from the community to the private sector. [Interruption.] That must be the 25th or 26th time that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has made a childish jibe from a sedentary position. If he wishes to contribute to the debate, I will give way to him.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Why had local councils left the land derelict for so long? Why does the Labour party not admit responsibility for that?

Mr. McCartney: That comment shows the ignorance of Conservative Members about the ownership of derelict land. In London and other urban areas, the overwhelming proportion of such land is owned not by local authorities but by the private sector and by other public sector bodies. The derelict land programme exists because of the work of local authorities. My local authority has the largest reclamation programme of any local authority in Europe. In the main, derelict land has been the by-product of de-industrialisation, when the private sector, having made its profit, gets out and leaves the community to cope with the resulting disaster.

Mr. Hughes: Talk to Londoners.

Mr. McCartney: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to try to make cheap political jibes when we are trying to resolve the major problem of how derelict land can be brought back to public use for employment or environmental purposes, whether by the public or the private sector.

Mr. Morley: The derelict land in my constituency results from the massive steelworks closures brought


about by the Government. The local authority has not been able to tackle the problem because, when the land was in private ownership, there was unrestricted dumping of poisonous chemicals of all kinds on the site. No local authority has the money to tackle that scale of pollution. It requires Government money, although in fact it is the responsibility of the private company which polluted the site and then, having taken its profit, left the problem to the local authority.

Mr. McCartney: Again, my hon. Friend makes the position clear. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West is trying to interrupt from a sedentary position again. He should quit while he is ahead. For three months he was in a privileged position to contribute to the Committee debates on these issues, but he signally failed to do so, although no doubt we shall hear more interruptions from him between now and 2.30 tomorrow afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Wigan pier?"] Wigan pier is a prime example of a local authority initiative turning private dereliction to public use. This year it was awarded the European heritage award for the best environmental improvement in Europe. It is so good that Ministers arrive almost daily to see what a wonderful job the local authority has done. If the hon. Member for Harrow, West is really interested in the refurbishment of the local economy and community through the proper use of derelict land grant and public investment, I invite him to come to Wigan—he might learn something.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government Whip to admonish a Conservative Back Bencher for having the temerity to intervene after sitting silent for so long?

Mr. Patnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was listening to my hon. Friend the Whip. He was complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on his contribution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This gives me the opportunity to point out that there are rather too many private conversations on both sides of the House. I have been tolerant because the House has been sitting for some time, but I am sure that we shall make greater progress if hon. Members will restrain themselves.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends were not talking among themselves—they were giving me encouragement. Since about two o'clock this morning, Conservative Members have been filibustering with childish comments and pranks. I even had to admonish one group who had obviously come in from Annabel's after a bit too much pink champagne and tried to disrupt the proceedings. The Opposition, however, will not be deflected from dealing with the issues at stake.
To return to my subject, will the money be used for benevolent community purposes to assist the poorest members of the community living within the confines of the housing action trusts? Will it be used to help families who, due to the changes in income support, can no longer claim lump sum payments for essential items such as furniture, carpets and curtains or so-called luxuries such as cookers, bedding and heating appliances? If the money is to be spent on that kind of activity to maintain the social fabric of the community, I should be the first to say that the amendment should be withdrawn, but I suspect that

that is not the prime objective. The money is a slush fund to be used once the assets have been stripped from the local authority and the community, and it will find its way into the pockets of those who should never have received it.
I end with a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing); there is not much point in asking the Minister, as we shall get no reply. Is there not widespread disquiet about the docklands accounts and the way in which hundreds of millions of pounds of public money has been disbursed by the corporation? There should be full public knowledge of that, but the allegations are still not in the public domain because of the secrecy involved in that development.

Mr. George Howarth: As my hon. Friend may know. the Merseyside development corporation has been severely criticised by the auditors for not keeping proper financial control over its expenditure.

Mr. McCartney: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not alluding to that point. He and other hon. Members from that region are disquieted, given that the organisation was set up in a blaze of glory precisely to undercut or cut out the role of the then Merseyside county council, the Liverpool city council and other councils involved in the regeneration of Merseyside. It is a crying shame, considering the major cuts in rate support grant and housing investment programme money for authorities in Merseyside, when a non-elected quango, appointed by the Secretary of State, is not only squandering but misusing public money. Will the Secretary of State take action and seek to recover public resources in the same way as he attempted to crucify bankrupt Labour councils for simply providing new homes and refusing to cut public and social services?

6 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman is on the Opposition Back Benches now.

Mr. Banks: Yes, I get around as much as I can. Presenting a moving target on a day such as this is safer, and probably in the best interests of my future health and prosperity.
I trust the Under-Secretary of State. She certainly never makes a promise that she does not keep. She gets around that, of course, by never making any promises. At least that is an advance on the promises that other Ministers do not keep. It may have been a back-handed compliment, but it was still meant as a compliment.
We are suspicious of this part of clause 66. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) moved amendment No. 313. We raised this matter in Committee on 18 February. To his credit, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) drew particular attention to HATs giving financial assistance to any one person. We all miss the incisive contributions that were made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. We wish that we could pray in aid his oratory this afternoon. The answer that we got from the Government was wholly unsatisfactory. It was not an answer at all.
I shall make a brief contribution on this occasion, just to get my hand back in, as it were. I ask the Minister to be more precise about what sort of individuals the


Government had in mind when they framed clause 66. As the amendment rightly states, it would be far more appropriate for grant-giving powers of HATs to have been given to fund local needs through community centres, advice agencies and tenants' associations. In view of what we know is going on elsewhere, and the possibility of councils extending the principle of portable discounts to people, there might be such an element. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) might develop that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, there is a possibility that there will be a slush fund and that HATs will be used to give lump sums to individuals to tempt them to move out so that flats and houses can be sold. That is another form of winkling, and we are worried about it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South could be moved to consider withdrawing his amendment if we were to have some more assurances from the Minister.
Picking up the point about the financial probity of the London Docklands development corporation, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is undoubtedly the best expert in the House on the functions, activities and behaviour of the London Docklands development corporation. But Opposition Members and people in the east end are seriously worried about the financial business and doings of the LDDC, and so was the auditor. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee will interview representatives of the LDDC to see whether it can get to the bottom of the matter.
With unelected, effectively unaccountable quangos, away from the scrutiny of the ballot box, without public admission to meetings, and without printed agendas and minutes, there is always the problem of all the things that they can get up to. We shall refer to that matter when we examine the composition of HATs and the publication of their guidelines. The Minister will set a good scene for later debates if she gives us some more assurances about what this part of clause 66 means in respect of HATs giving grants to individuals.

Mrs. Roe: I have listened with amazement to some of the wild allegations that Opposition Members have made about the likely activities of HATs. It is quite untrue to suggest that the Bill gives HATs an unfettered ability to spend taxpayers' money. HATs will be able to use their power to give financial assistance only with the consent of the Secretary of State. My Department will issue a financial memorandum to HATs, setting out in detail the circumstances in which assistance may be given. As

provided in amendment No. 332, which the House agreed only a little time ago, full details of all financial assistance by each HAT will be set out in annual reports submitted to Parliament.
Opposition Members are becoming obsessed with derelict land. That land may be of particular relevance to urban development corporations in Thamesmead, but it is of marginal relevance to HATs, which will be set up to improve life for people who live in run-down council housing. HATs will certainly be required to make the best possible use of derelict land in their areas, as the Secretary of State expects local authorities to do.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to accountability. Of course HATs will not be asset-strippers. The interests of the residents in the area will be essential to HATs' interests. Despite what Opposition Members have said, I emphasise that HATs will be fully accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State. HATs' activities will be controlled and monitored through the corporate planning system. The Secretary of State will have powers of direction over HATs, and HATs will be required to submit annual reports to Parliament. We are about to consider an amendment that was promised in Committee to allow the National Audit Office access to HATs, to carry out value-for-money audit examinations. That will ensure HATs' final financial accountability.

Mr. McCartney: I follow up the hon. Lady's commitment about HATs not being asset-strippers and about their accountability. Does that mean that, when HATs sell housing stock, whether or not they are rehabilitated at the time of transfer, the Government will not allow that stock to be transferred to absentee landlord companies? That is similar to what is happening with British Coal property. What steps will the hon. Lady take to ensure that, when it is transferred, stock will not be resold on the open market, as so many Coal Board houses have been? Even within a day of the sale of an asset in London, tenants are left not knowing who their real landlords are.

Mrs. Roe: The assurances that the hon. Gentleman is seeking were debated in Committee. He knows that the interests of residents in HAT areas are of prime importance.
It is simply nonsense to seek, as amendment No. 313 does, to restrict HATs to giving financial assistance to statutory authorities or registered charities, both of which are encompassed in the general term in clause 66, "person". Therefore, I call on hon. Members to reject the amendment

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
I believe that it would be in the interests of the House for us to adjourn our consideration of the Bill now and not to proceed with any further business today. The Opposition undertook that, if the House debated the Housing Bill through last night, the Bill would be completed today. That undertaking was repeatedly reaffirmed. The Opposition have now indicated that they do not intend to fulfil that undertaking. The House can work only on the basis that where undertakings are given they are honoured. In the present circumstances, we shall need time to consider very carefully how we should proceed.

Mr. Allan Roberts: That is one of the most outrageous statements that I have heard the Leader of the House make. He made accusations about my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been negotiating with him, but they are not here to answer those accusations. He did not have the courtesy to tell them that he would be coming here to make those outrageous accusations—

Mr. Wakeham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: No. I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman does not deserve that courtesy.
It is the protocol in the House that if hon. Members, whether they are Leaders of the House or not, intend to mention other hon. Members, call them liars and insult them, they should at least have the courtesy to tell them about it in advance so that they can be in the Chamber to answer the accusations.
The truth is that this Government, this Leader of the House and this Secretary of State for the Environment have treated the House with contempt. They have tabled amendments that have completely rewritten the Housing Bill and given us totally inadequate time to debate those amendments and new clauses. Government Back-Bench Members know that to be true because the Government have done the same with other legislation. The Opposition responded to the Government's treatment of the House by debating the legislation fully and properly in the interests of the nation. It is the Government who have ratted on the proper procedures. Their attitude is a disgrace.

Mr. Wakeham: All that I would say is that I informed members of the Opposition Front Bench before I made the statement.

Mr. Spearing: This is a debatable motion. I am sure that the House will wish to adjourn soon, but, in view of the terms of the statement made by the Leader of the House, I do not think that we should do so at once.
I have no knowledge of what used to be not mentioned in the House—the usual channels. I believe that the phrase was coined in the 1930s. I put it to the Leader of the House in all sincerity that whatever undertakings he may have thought were given—or may have been given, for all I know—the right hon. Gentleman is not solely relating to colleagues on his Bench. I am glad to see him nodding in response to that.
The Leader of the House has forgotten some things. He has, quite properly, interrupted the debate on my amendment No. 313. If the motion is accepted, as I suspect it will be, we shall resume the debate at a later date. But it is more important to recall business questions last

Thursday. The Leader of the House announced then that the House would discuss the Housing Bill on three days this week and that it would be concluded on Wednesday. I pointed out to him that that target was unlikely to be achieved because of the importance of the Bill and the number of amendments tabled to it. With the best will in the world, I did not see how it could be attained. The Leader of the House said that he would not withdraw the statement but that he would have further discussions. I have no doubt that those further discussions took place.
6.15 pm
The Leader of the House must know from the tone of hon. Members' contributions to the debate that our difficulty has been not with the usual workings of the House but with the nature of the Bill. A difficult Bill always attracts strong feelings. A Bill that is badly drafted usually needs many amendments on Report, and many amendments have been selected by the Chair because of the contentious nature of the Bill. I should not call them difficulties. This has been Parliament doing its job and finding out what the Bill is about. The present position has more to do with the nature of the material than with the behaviour of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and certainly those on the Front Bench, during the past 24 hours.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: This is an unhappy moment. The events of the past 24 hours have proved that the Opposition are an undisciplined rabble.

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make accusations about the behaviour of Members of Parliament during a period when he was not even present in the Chamber? Is it not a fact that the Opposition have been very organised and have destroyed the progress of this Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the motion for the adjournment of the debate. We have had a long sitting and many hon. Members will be hoping that it will not be too long before they can get some sleep. I hope that we can conduct the debate quietly and responsibly.

Mr. Onslow: I have no wish to state the obvious at length, and I do not withdraw a word of what I said. The key word that I used to describe the Opposition was "undisciplined". I believe, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House assures me that it is true, that the agreements that were entered into have been broken. Broken agreements are not a sign of good discipline. It is clear from the events that those who are supposed to control the Opposition have failed to do so.
If it is true that the Labour Whips, speaking with the authority that they have, gave an undertaking that, i:n return for sitting through the night, we could finish the Bill by 10 o'clock this evening, even if in the process the Killingholme Bill was killed, and that undertaking has been broken by Opposition Members, it is an act of high indiscipline.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Onslow:: I will not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to make his own speech.
Once again, the Labour Whips, the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have failed to exercise the authority which the House expects of them. The Leader of the Opposition is the one person who


should come here, because the House may have one or two things to say to him. If he has the leadership qualities to take part in Prime Minister's Question Time—

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make at such length accusations of indiscipline when Mr. Speaker today made a clear statement that the debate had been conducted properly and within the rules of procedure? Is he not, by making false accusations of indiscipline, trying, in an oblique manner, to criticise the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not regard anything that has been said so far, on either side of the House, as a reflection on the Chair. It is understandable that, after long hours of debate—[Interruption.] Order. It is understandable that, after such long hours of debate, hon. Members are getting a little tired, but the best way for us to proceed now is to conduct the debate in an orderly and quiet manner.

Mr. Onslow: I am not criticising the Chair in any way, nor am I challenging the proposition that, if hon. Members stay within the rules of order, they are obeying the discipline of the Chair. I am talking about the breach of the internal discipline of the Labour party. The well-remunerated Opposition Chief Whip undertakes—

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Onslow: No, I shall not give way. I wish to make my main point.
The Opposition Chief Whip undertakes, on behalf of his colleagues, to deliver certain acts, but they have not occurred. If the Leader of the Opposition took greater interest in discipline within his party, we might be able to see where the true responsibility lies. We know that there is no discipline within the Labour party, because there is no leadership, from the Opposition Chief Whip, from the shadow Leader of the House or from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a case of Opposition 3, Government I. The Leader of the House was a bit premature. Had he waited until the next debate, he would have been moving the Adjournment halfway through the groups of amendments and new clauses selected by Mr. Speaker. We are on the 56th such group and there are 58 still to come. Perhaps the most telling point of all is that a substantial number—nearly half—of these amendments and new clauses have come from the Government. Of those remaining to be debated, 73 were tabled by the Government. Since we started debates on part III, almost exactly 12 hours ago, substantial time has been spent on Government amendments and new clauses. The Government have had to concede that their management of the business has shown that they are unable to deliver their own legislation in the time that they had planned.
The Bill was always going to be controversial. It was bound to be more controversial when the Government decided to add to it almost as much again by way of amendment. This came not in the days immediately after the Committee and the original day for Report in April, nor in the days between Committee and the revised date for Report in May, nor between the Committee and the second revision of the date for Report in early June, but

between that second revision and the eventual date for Report in mid-June. By that stage, we should have had some sign of what the Government were going to propose, but it was not until the final hours available for tabling new clauses and amendments that the Government tabled this mass of proposals.
Not only that, but the substantial proposals that the Government said that they would show to the House before Report have still not been seen. The major matter of a social charter for tenants is still a matter of mystery, shrouded in confusion and followed everywhere by uncertainties.

Mr. Skinner: Has the hon. Member considered that what has really happened is that the Prime Minister has given the Leader of the House a bit of earhole powder and told him to get the matter sorted out because it looked as if, under her Administration, we were going to break this century's record for length of sitting? Furthermore, she wants to come in here with the Secretary of State for the Environment after it is all over and clear up all this litter.
Finally, does the hon. Gentleman think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who took part in some of these proceedings, would describe what has happened today—signing up for the homeless and fighting for the tenants—as parliamentary mugging?

Mr. Hughes: The answer to the last question is perhaps the easiest. It is no. Yet again, the procedures of the House have been used as they are entitled to be. In large measure, Back Benchers have spoken not a fiction but a fact. They have pointed out to the country that we have a Housing Bill that still does not mention the word "homeless". It is a Housing Bill, written in 1988, with 110,000 people having presented themselves as homeless, which does not treat the main issue with which it has to deal.
I do not know whether it was worked out when the Prime Minister came in for her breakfast blessing or whether it was worked out later, but the reality of the motion to adjourn is that the Government have had to concede that they did not allow enough time in the beginning and that they will lose some of their business in any event. There is no way out.
The only way for the Government is to admit that they have been well and truly snookered, caught and knocked off the table. Even if the Leader of the House succeeds, as I suppose he might, with his motion to adjourn—when it can be voted on is a subject for your ruling Mr. Deputy Speaker—he will have to come back to the House either for the continuation of Report stage part three, part four and part five, followed by new clauses which the Government chose to put at the end rather than at the beginning or he will have to come back with a guillotine motion. That would be yet more evidence not only that the Government cannot manage their own business but that they have to bring in a timetable to stifle the debate on housing the homeless when that is a matter which the House has shown that it is willing and able to debate and wants to debate at considerably greater length.

Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need not have found themselves in this mess? The trivial argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) shows that he has not


understood what it is about. The mess could have been avoided if the Government had listened to what I said last week, which met with agreement by some. I forecast that the Bill would not be through on time if the Government continued to try to introduce new clauses in a way which undermined our Committee procedure.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I remember what was said during business questions last Thursday. I remember the points of order on Thursday. The case was made for more time, and I remember that the Leader of the House said that that would be considered. He did not say, "No, there is no question of it." Instead, he said that the Government would consider what they could do.
The reality is that no extra time has been given. It is 24 hours since we began the third day of the Housing Bill on Report. We started three hours late. Some of us have broken sitting records before. Some of us sat through the record sitting since the war of 32 hours on 22–23 May 1984. Some of us did so with no difficulty, and to his credit the Minister for Housing and Planning was one of them. We did so because the Government were trying to abolish local government. They were trying to steamroller through the House legislation that went against the wishes of the people and local authorities. The matter deserved to be debated at length. It deserved to face the resistance of the Members of the House of Commons.
When the Leader of the House seeks to terminate this debate so that it will not, perhaps, make the record books to which it was otherwise clearly heading—that is not certain, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you and your colleagues may well decide that we should continue for some hours yet—let him understand that there are two orders to follow the consideration of the Bill on Report, as well as other matters and an Adjournment debate.
The reality is that we are prepared and are willing to debate housing and the homeless for as long as the matter remains on the political agenda. We shall do so until there are a Government in office who represent, first, the majority of the British people, which this Government do not, either politically or electorally, and, secondly, the majority of those who need protection, care and concern. Opposition Members, perhaps occasionally supported by the rare compassionate, concerned Conservative Back Bencher, will continue to challenge the Government's steamroller. We believe that legislation must be debated properly, and debated until we get it right. If we cannot persuade the Government to change the laws that they propose, on their head be it. On their head be the political blame. We shall have none of the Housing Bill. We shall have none of the Government's housing policy. We shall have none of the authoritarian and unsympathetic attitude of the Government, who do not deal with the people who are in the greatest housing need.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I warmly welcome the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Unlike many Opposition Members who are now in their places, I have sat through the vast majority of the third day's consideration of the Housing Bill on Report. I have sat through shift changes on the Opposition Front Bench. That is hardly evidence of a sincere approach to the Bill. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have come and they have gone. Opposition Members have been in evidence by

extremely long and tedious speeches. They have failed to do justice to the serious arguments that were advanced in Committee.
In Committee, we debated the real issues. Opposition Members have been unwilling and unable to carry forward those arguments on Report. Therefore, I welcome my right hon. Friend's motion to adjourn the debate. I do not believe that the Opposition ever intended seriously to debate housing issues. I welcome the fact that we shall be returning to consideration of the Bill on Report. When we do so—perhaps with a timetable motion, but that is not a matter for me—Conservative Members will be in a position to advance the important arguments that demonstrate why the Bill is vital for the homeless. It is considered vital by all those who are concerned about the provision of housing for everyone in Britain. It will put an end to the evil empires of council housing that the Labour party controls, which have done so much damage to ordinary people who merely want a home. Opposition Members do not care about those people. Conservative Members do, and we shall make that clear when we continue the debate.

Mr. Soley: Perhaps we can now deal with some of the facts. I do not think that I have ever seen a Government in such an incredible mess. lit is surely one in which they deserve to be.
Let me explain what happened. Consideration of the Bill in Committee began in December 1987 and it emerged on 15 March. What happened then? It remained behind the scenes while the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Planning tried to make sense of one of the most incredibly stupid measures to be brought before the House by any Government. Why is it so bad?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been a Member of this House for a long time and I have rarely seen a Patronage Secretary or other Government Whip behave in such an appalling way. Surely we can expect acceptable behaviour from the Patronage Secretary of a sort that you would expect from other right hon. and hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that you should consider suspending the sitting until we can get some decent behaviour from him.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I see no point at all in suspending the sitting. I have no wish to do so, nor shall I do so. I expect the very highest standards from every hon. Member, irrespective of his or her standing in the House.

Mr. Soley: I think that it would help the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, if those who sit on the Government Front Bench listened to my remarks and to those made by others who will contribute to the debate subsequently. There are many things that Conservative Back Benchers do not know about the passage of the Bill.
As I have said, the Bill emerged from Committee in March. It has been with the Government since then. Few Bills have been waiting so long for consideration on Report. Why? There is something that I want to say about the Minister for Housing and Planning that Conservative Members may wish to hear. The Minister tried hard to


improve the Bill. He was prepared—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying about his Minister.
The Minister for Housing and Planning tried to improve the Bill. In Committee he made about 100 concessions, rightly and properly. He agreed to change the Bill in places, to reconsider points or to come back to us with recommendations or suggestions. He acted generously. I always claimed that the reason for that was that the Bill had been badly drafted and that the Secretary of State for the Environment had wanted a different Bill.
I then recognised that the Government were having acute difficulty in getting the Bill back to the Floor of the House. Why? Not just because of the concessions but because they needed to make other changes as well.

Mr. Greg Knight: rose—

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman must wait; I am not giving way.
In making the other changes, the Government made the fatal error of including major changes which would affect the procedures of the House. The Minister can confirm that I was on the telephone to his office last Thursday to say that I was worried about the changes. On Friday I said that there was no way that I would co-operate on the time scale that we had agreed of three and a half days but that if he gave me an extra day to debate the new clauses, making the total time four and a half days, I would accept that. Even today I offered that again, but the offer was rejected by the Government.
If there are to be new clauses and amendments of constitutional importance, and if they are to be considered without going through Committee, is it not reasonable to ask that that period should be given on the Floor of the House to consider what would otherwise have been considered in Committee?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is important to get the timing right. What the hon. Gentleman has said is true. He asked for another day and said that if we gave him another day he would agree to speed the passage of the Bill. However, he did that some hours after agreeing that he would give us the Bill by around 10 o'clock today, and he did it in the presence of several witnesses, including the Secretary of State. I suspect that he had not told his Back Benchers about it, and I suspect that that is why he could not deliver it.

Mr. Soley: It is more complicated if we look at the timing. It is right that I accepted the timing before I read new clause 47, and before I got the tenants' charter and the guide to new clause 47, which was put in the Table Office only on Thursday, indicating that the Government had given it considerable thought. It was only after I had seen those on Friday that I said the timing was unacceptable. Until that time I had not seen the detail of new clause 47, nor had I seen the pamphlet which has been put in the Table Office. It had not been given to me as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on housing, any more than the paper on tenants' choice was given to me. So where is the normal relationship through which Ministers give information to their opposite numbers?

Mr. Waldegrave: We should be clear. The hon. Gentleman offered the deal today, not last Thursday or Friday. I suspect that he had not told his Back Benchers, and I understand their astonishment.

Mr. Soley: I can say exactly what I said to the Minister and he can confirm it. I said, "I have no problems about you getting the Bill by 10 o'clock or 12 o'clock." I have no problems. What the Minister still does not understand is the extent of the anger, not just in the Labour party but in the Liberal party and among Scottish and Welsh Members, and for good reason.
6.45 pm
Let me take the matter further. There then came the amazing additions. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I put a motion to the House last Thursday asking for the new clauses to be referred back to the Committee, because by that time I had realised that what the Government were doing was more serious. When that was not accepted, I raised a point of order. I wrote a manuscript amendment, which is still on the Table, which asked that the new clauses which had not been considered in Committee should be sent to the Committee. I told the Minister that again today. I said, "If you do not want to give me another day, do it differently. Let the new clauses which did not go to Committee be sent to the Committee and I will accept that." That also was rejected.
I want to tell Conservative Members and the public the extent of the Government's proposed additions to the Bill. New clauses 26, 25 and 29 were added without any debate in Committee. They are extensive. Two new schedules on Wales were added without having gone through Committee. There were 12 pages of typed print on the Order Paper for those alone. I ask the Government and Conservative Members to think about what that implies.
In our parliamentary democracy a Bill is read the First time and then has a Second Reading before going into Committee. Hon. Members know that it goes into Committee for detailed consideration, not because the parties disagree on some parts of it but because there are unintended consequences with legislation from any party. We send Bills to Committee so that they may have a detailed analysis to prevent difficulties arising.
The new amendments propose a housing corporation for Wales, to which neither I nor my hon. Friends object, but I have every objection to something as big, powerful and effective as that being set up without being examined in Committee. In Committee not one member of the Government, nor an Opposition Front Bench Member, spoke for Wales. There was just one Back Bencher on each side to speak for Wales.
What else was in the new proposals? If we are talking about broken promises, I have much time to deal with what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) has tried to do to improve the Bill. Some things have not been delivered. In Committee, the Minister said:
On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, the next major occasion on which we shall debate what the Government have called the charter would be on Third Reading, because we have given clear assurances that we must have a much more detailed debate then, and it would be wrong if we did not." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 March 1988; c. 1493.]
That was on the social landlords' charter. The Under-Secretary of State also said in Committee that it should be before the House on Report. The charter has


still not been produced. It is one of the most important parts of the Bill, as every Minister has said, but no such thing exists.

Mr. Greg Knight: rose—

Mr. Soley: I will not give way.
That is in the Committee Hansard. Hon. Members should read what the Minister said: that it would be ready for Third Reading. It is not ready, yet it is a central part of the Bill.

Mr. Knight: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Soley: I am anxious to go through this in detail, without taking up the time of other hon. Members.
Let me go on to what I found most offensive of all, new clause 47. I shall not debate it, but new clause 47 provides that local authorities can give away all their council housing lock, stock and barrel. The small print of the paper that was left in the Table Office on Thursday—so it had been thought about, printed and produced, but left there only on Thursday—-says that local authorities, to meet their homelessness statutory responsibility, will be able to contract out the homeless to private landlords.
I ask Conservative Members to consider whether, even if they think that it is a good idea for a local authority to enter into a contract with private landlords and for private landlords to take the homeless people, it is a good idea to produce such a clause—without its being debated in Committee—which does not decide how long those people will be there, how much the landlords will be paid or who they pass them on to afterwards. None of that has been debated, nor would it have been had we not taken this exercise.
What happens next? New clause 47 is really offensive. It refers to the "Housing (Scotland) Act 1987". The Housing (Scotland) Bill is not yet an Act of Parliament. It is in the House of Lords at the moment. If the Government wanted to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill, they could do so in the House of Lords. They have not done so; they have done it in a Bill that applies to England and Wales. There was not a single Scottish Member, never mind a Scottish Member from the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, on the Committee. No wonder Scottish Members and Welsh Members feel angry about it. Why should they be treated in that way?
Then we come to the really offensive part. From time to time, the Government have chosen to lecture the people of this country on the dangers of retrospective legislation. Yet new clause 47 takes effect from 9 June 1988. It is retrospective legislation by which a local authority can get rid of all of its housing. Where is the great argument of the Government and the Tory party against retrospective legislation? It has gone. Conservative Members, the Government and the Minister must know that what they have done is deeply offensive to the methods by which the House is used to proceeding.
The next issue also concerns new clause 47. It concerns the voting system. We all know that the voting system in which local authority tenants are transferred to private tenancies is rigged. We know that people who die have their votes counted in favour of a transfer to the private landlord. We know that empty flats are counted as a vote

in favour of a private landlord. That has been around for some time. Suddenly the Government have discovered that, despite that rigged voting, tenants still do not want to be transferred. Therefore, they invented new clause 47. They know that, if they squeeze local authorities enough, sufficient local authorities will do their dirty work for them and transfer the tenants under the guidelines of the voting system. Of course, there is no statutory requirement on local authorities to carry that out. It is not in the Bill, and we all know that if it is not in the Bill it is not a statutory requirement.
The Bill has been appallingly mismanaged from beginning to end. I have some sympathy for the Minister for Housing and Planning, but frankly he must ask himself how much longer he can serve under a Secretary of State who drafts a Bill for him, fights him all the way, line by line, on the changes, and then puts him through this. If the Minister wants a Secretary of State who wipes his feet on him, so be it. But that is his choice, and the House of Commons will not put up with it.
The Bill is not just about housing. Housing is central to it, but underneath rests the issue of parliamentary democracy and the way in which the House of Commons is trampling all over it.

Mr. Fallon: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I wish to remind the House of the terms of the motion that my right hon. Friend moved. He made it absolutely clear that an undertaking had been given by the Opposition. He went on to emphasise that that undertaking had been reaffirmed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Norman Tebbit: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is on his feet.

Mr. Tebbit: I distinctly heard, as did many hon. Members, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) accuse my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of being a liar. [Interruption.] Even with the debased standards which are common on the Opposition Front Bench, that remark ought to be withdrawn. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect to the House, I was busily engaged and I certainly did not hear it. If any hon. Member did use that word, I ask him to respect the traditions of the House and withdraw it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I did use that word, and I withdraw it, but I hope also that the Leader of the House will withdraw the outrageous accusations that he made earlier which virtually implied that some of my hon. Friends were lying.

Mr. Max Madden:: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has withdrawn the remark that was challenged, will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask the Government Chief Whip who, as the Leader of the House was making his application for the Adjournment, pointed to the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench and called them liars on a number of occasions. He was clearly heard by several Opposition Members. What is good enough for the gander is good enough for him. Will he also withdraw his remarks?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to accept my full responsibilities while I am in the Chair. The House will know that I was not in the Chair at the time and will understand that I cannot accept responsibility for what took place when I was not here.

Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear to the House that an undertaking had been given. He went on to emphasise that that undertaking had been repeatedly reaffirmed. I think that I can defuse the situation. My right hon. Friend was being a little less than his usual charitable self when he implied that that undertaking could have been kept or adhered to—

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order. I have dealt with all the points of order. Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Winnick: I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule on the following. You asked that if anyone used the word "liar" he should withdraw. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has explained the position and has done so. You said that if anyone else might have used that word, that was not a matter for you because you were not in the Chair. As a large number of my hon. Friends distinctly heard the Government Chief Whip repeatedly shout out, "Liar," surely it is right and proper that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have enough honour to stand at the Dispatch Box and withdraw what he said. He said, "Liar"; he knows that he said, "Liar," and he should withdraw it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I made the position clear in dealing with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). [Interruption.] Order. It is incumbent upon any hon. Member in the House who uses language which is unacceptable to us to withdraw it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

7 pm

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to go back over old ground, but on one occasion during a Friday debate I made a remark about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sitting in your seat was another Deputy Speaker. I was asked to withdraw that remark on the following Monday, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. Therefore, I ask your Clerk to tell you that the way in which you are ruling on this allegation, which I am not in a position to judge, is not the way in which this House is run.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a challenge to the Chair. If any hon. Member wishes to raise that matter on another occasion, he is perfectly at liberty to do so. At the moment, however, I am listening to the comments of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).

Mr. Fallon: As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I was so crudely interrupted, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made a number of claims: first that an undertaking was given; secondly, that that undertaking was repeatedly reaffirmed. His third claim was slightly unfair. He left Conservative Members with the impression that either the shadow housing spokesman or the Opposition Chief Whip were in a position to fulfil the

undertakings that had been given. It is clear to Conservative Members that the Labour party is out of control. Neither the shadow housing spokesman nor the Opposition Chief Whip can control any of the rebels who have been at work during the last 24 hours.
There are a number of Opposition parties. To be charitable, some hon. Members are genuinely interested in housing, while others are more interested in the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. They are concerned with what might happen to them when Mr. Arthur Scargill hears that they have acceded to the passing of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. They are concerned not so much with Shelter as with Mr. Arthur Scargill. They are concerned not so much with the implications as with their deselection for having failed to resist the passage of that private Bill.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it might help his argument if we were to adjourn so that we can find out whether Opposition spokesmen have made statements, not to their party leader that does not seem to be their wont these days—but to the chief political correspondent of the Press Association?

Mr. Fallon: I think that it would be fair if we were to give the chief political correspondent of the Press Association a slightly earlier night than he has been used to during the last couple of days. He should not have to wait until one o'clock in the morning. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend's motion for that purpose will be acceded to, but let no hon. Member on this side of the House be under any illusion about what happened during the last 24 hours. We have seen an Opposition party that is totally out of control in its conduct of the Housing Bill and in its desire not to deal with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and other issues before the House.
Before we adjourn, there should be a statement by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman about who is in control of this rabble, whether the Labour party wishes to proceed with the Housing Bill and about its view of the conduct of business and the delivery and acceptance of undertakings through the usual channels.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Tony Banks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for addressing you in this Frankie Vaughan-type garb, especially as I am wearing a white jacket, but you probably know that I was a junior Whip—[Interruption.] I was also a very effective junior Whip. I resent deeply the comments that were made by the Leader of the House from the Dispatch Box. They could easily be interpreted as implying that a deal was struck with me, as the Whip, and that I then reneged on it. I want to make it quite clear that at no stage whatsoever was I ever approached by any Whip on the other side, nor did I give any assurance whatsoever with regard to any deal. I wish the debate had been allowed to continue. I resent the allegation that the Labour party is ill-disciplined. Last night—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is


a matter for debate. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, and that of many other hon. Members, but he has already made the point that I think he wished to make.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could inquire into the suggestion that has been put to me, that the Leader of the House has implied to the Opposition that the Short money will be put in question unless the Opposition co-operate over the Bill. If the Leader of the House has used the Short money as a threat in an attempt to control the Opposition, I suggest to you that that is absolutely outrageous.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall see that the matter is referred to Mr. Speaker and that a response is given.

Mr. George Howarth: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If what my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has said actually happened, was it not a breach of privilege and of the rules of this House? Should it not be referred to the Privileges Committee?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already made it quite clear that at this stage the matter ought to be referred to Mr. Speaker for him to deal with.

Mr. James Pawsey: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) resigned as a Whip on the question of disciplining Opposition Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Resignations of Whips have nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair. We are in the middle of a Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 269, Noes 193.

Division No. 359]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fallon, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)





Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Kilfedder, James
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ryder, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speller, Tony


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)






Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stevens, Lewis
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Summerson, Hugo
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Woodcock, Mike


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareham, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walden, George





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Battle, John
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beggs, Roy
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buckley, George J.
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coleman, Donald
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Charles


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunningham, Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Doran, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Douglas, Dick
McCartney, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Macdonald, Calum A.





McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rooker, Jeff


McKelvey, William
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


McTaggart, Bob
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliott
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis


Nellist, Dave
Wall, Pat


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wallace, James


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Prescott, John
Winnick, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Quin, Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Radice, Giles
Wray, Jimmy


Randall, Stuart
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, Martin



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Chris Smith.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robertson, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingiy:—

The House division: Ayes 278, Noes 183.

Division No. 360]
[7.20 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Alton, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amos, Alan
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Atkins, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baldry, Tony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nicholas


Bellingham, Henry
Burns, Simon


Bendall, Vivian
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butler, Chris


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Sir Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carttiss, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cash, William


Boswell, Tim
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Chope, Christopher






Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cormack, Patrick
Knapman, Roger


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Day, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dunn, Bob
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mans, Keith


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gow, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hawkins, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Howells, Geraint
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kennedy, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela





Ryder, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Wallace, James


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walters, Sir Dennis


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speller, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Steel, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Summerson, Hugo
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Yeo, Tim


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. David Lightbown.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Darling, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beggs, Roy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam






Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


John, Brynmor
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Richardson, Jo


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Turner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wall, Pat


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N.


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morley, Elliott
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Brien, William
Worthington, Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Ray Powell and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Prescott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Debate adjourned accordingly.

Hospital Closures (Gwynedd)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip has just moved the motion for the Adjournment of the House, but we still have business on the Order Paper.
After the debate on the Housing Bill, there should have been a debate on air pollution from large combustion plants on a motion to take note of European Community documents Nos. 11642/83 and 5124/85. If the Government do not want to move the "take note" motion, would it be in order for me to move it so that we can debate the Government's record on acid rain, taking account of the important fact that the meeting of EC Ministers to consider the instruction from the House takes place tomorrow?
Why have the Government not moved the motion? Why are they stopping debate on acid rain? They do not want to debate housing and now they do not want to debate EC documents on an important subject. Is it in order for the Opposition to move the motion? There is plenty of time—it is only 7.31 pm

Madam Deputy Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that the motion for the Adjournment of the House has been moved. The "take note" motion is in the hands of the Government. It is not for the Opposition to move it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to take up the time available to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not.

Mr. Spearing: Alas, the motion for the Adjournment has already been moved. The "take note" motion has been recommended to the House by the Scrutiny Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said, the matter is to be debated in Brussels tomorrow. There is every expectation, to judge from the Government's explanatory memorandum, that they want to make progress. The motion says that the Government should negotiate on the directive to
provide for a substantial but cost-effective reduction in emissions from large combustion plants.
There is therefore every expectation that the Government will reach a compromise and make an agreement tomorrow before the matter has been debated in the House. There is no reason why the matter should not be debated tonight. In that respect, the Government are deliberately and wantonly not allowing the House to discuss the issue before the Brussels meeting tomorrow. My point of order is whether the Leader of the House can tell us whether, if any agreement is reached, it will be subject to parliamentary reserve because there has been no debate tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that that is no longer a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I seek your guidance about


the Leader of the House's tactic in apparently threatening to withdraw Short money unless the Housing Bill is delivered? Apart from being a modern version of piracy, it may be a breach of privilege. Could you confirm that, on a written submission, Mr. Speaker would consider the matter and decide whether it is a breach of privilege? In view of the public collapse of the organisation of the Tory Whips Office and the Leader of the House using his position to threaten an established procedure—providing money for the Opposition parties—could you convey to Mr. Speaker our concern and ask for an examination of the matter? I hope that the Leader of the House does not try to threaten Mr. Speaker as well.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that Short money was introduced by the 1974–75 Labour Government to assist the Opposition of the day, the main body of which was the Tory party? Will you also confirm that at no time did Labour Members threaten or bully the Tory Opposition, which you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker used various tactics almost every week when the Labour Government did not have a majority?
Will you also confirm that the Short money has not yet been debated by the House in this Session and that it affects other minority parties, so it is outrageous for the Leader of the House to knock on the Shadow Cabinet's door asking for the deputy leader of the Labour party to come out, and then issue threats about withdrawing Short money because the Government lost control of business in the House? This has been a great parliamentary day for the Labour party in particular, and we shall not allow the Leader of the House to spoil it in any way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: All I can do in response to the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is to repeat what I said earlier—that this matter will be referred at the earliest opportunity, and I mean the earliest opportunity, to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Could I register—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that he is taking time out of the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Hughes: I do. Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I make the strongest possible representations about the fact that, with no notice, the Government have withdrawn business which they tabled and which can be taken appropriately only tonight before the important Environment Ministers' meeting in Brussels tomorrow, at which Britain will again be accused of being the dirty man of Europe?
The Environment Select Committee report came out yesterday, but a debate tomorrow will probably be too late. Can I ask that the relevant authorities in the House ensure that the Government do not in future lead the House to believe that it is to have a debate on such an important matter and then suddenly, and at the last minute, withdraw the opportunity?

Madam Deputy Speaker: There are senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point has been noted.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: This must be one of the most long-awaited Adjournment debates for many a year.
The debate is of considerable importance to the communities affected by Gwynedd health authority's closure proposals, which will affect six hospitals—Ysbyly Coffa Madog in Porthmaclog; the cottage hospital, Caernarfon; the Druid hospital, Llangefni; Ysbyty Devvi Sant, Bangor; Groesynyd hospital, Conwy; and certain facilities, including the children's ward, at Llandudno general hospital.
The health authority decided on 25 April to go ahead with its closure proposals, and the debate is particularly well timed as the Secretary of State's period for receiving objections to the closures ended last week.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health in Wales, to whom I am grateful for attending this short debate, will confirm that there has been an enormous mailbag of opposition to the closures. Indeed, the people of Gwynedd regard the ad hoc closure of valuable community health facilities as an act of wanton vandalism by the health authority. They cannot believe that a Government who claim that the Health Service is "safe in their hands" can possibly endorse this retrograde package.
I want to refer to the way in which the closure proposals have been formulated in general and then to deal in particular with the two hospitals in my constituency. The closure proposals were made last year after the health authority had been in some financial difficulty over recent years—indeed, ever since the new district general hospital, Ysbyty Gwynedd, opened in 1984. Because of those cash problems, the Welsh Office put in consultants, Deloitte Haskins and Sells, to report, on a narrowly specified brief, on the authority's financial position, its budgetary control system and how to get the books to balance as quickly a s possible. Nowhere was Deloitte asked to make value judgments in terms of service rendered or health care minimum standards required to be maintained.
Gwynedd health authority has consistently maintained that it has been underfunded by the Welsh Office, in revenue and particularly in capital expenditure. It claims that the Welsh Office had not made available the sums needed for a coherent capital expenditure programme. The capital programme announced by the Welsh Office shows that over the next 15 years Gwynedd will get only £15·8 million, or £68 per capita, compared with Clwyd getting £54·3 million, or £136 per capita—twice the level of Gwynedd—and West Glamorgan getting £65·3 million, or £179 per capita. That is despite the inadequate standard of many buildings in Gwynedd and the fact that Gwynedd's population is projected to increase by 5·6 per cent. from now until 2001, compared with a 1·9 per cent. increase for Wales as a whole.
The Minister must explain why Gwynedd has been starved of capital. Is it because of a shortage of capital in the Welsh Office or because no adequate capital proposals have been submitted by the authority to the Welsh Office?
The Deloitte report, which was published in September 1987, made it clear that there were fundamental causes of the health authority's financial problems. The prime reason given was
The cumulative underfunding of wage awards by approximately £2 million".


That, of course, was a direct result of Government policy.
The health authority's budgetary control system is supposed to highlight those areas of overspending so that management action can follow, but in 1986–87, when there was a net overspend of £1·5 million, only five of the 32 budget heads had overspending in excess of £100,000 and those five areas alone caused the £1·5 million overspend. Ysbyty Gwynedd itself gave rise to almost £700,000 of overspending.
Yet, although the budgetary control system identifies those areas of overspend, the health authority's corrective action to get its budget back into balance has not been aimed at those five areas. Instead, the authority plans to close community hospitals that have not contributed significantly to the net overspend. The absence of management by budgetary control reflects a complete lack of confidence by management in the implications of its own accounting system or in taking decisions on bases other than budgetary performance—on bases contrary to the terms of reference of the Deloitte study.
In fact, the Deloitte report was dramatically scathing in its comments on the health authority's budgetary control system, saying, in paragraph 61, for example:
The District's revenue expenditure is based on budgets which are unrealistic".
Paragraph 126 states:
Budgets are not currently based on activity levels as these are not produced as a part of the operational planning process.
That being so, it is hard to understand how the health authority or Deloitte had an adequate basis of financial information on which to take such far-reaching decisions.
Questions must be asked about the competence of both the Welsh Office and of the membership of the authority, in allowing the budgetary control system to continue in a state of complete shambles. The responsibility for the financial performance of the health authority lies either on the shoulders of the authority members or on the desk of the Secretary of State. It certainly does not lie with the people of Gwynedd, who do not elect the authority or have any control over it. Yet it is they who, through a real reduction in health care provision, are being asked to carry the can for the inadequacies of the authority's performance or the insufficiency of resources to sustain services.
The Welsh Office has laid down specific guidelines for the procedure to be followed when closures are proposed. It requires that the consultation document covers, first, the implications for patients, such as travel; secondly, an idea of options with relevant arguments; thirdly, alternative uses for the buildings; fourthly, alternative employment of staff; and fifthly, how the closure fits in with the area's plans.
I contend that Gwynedd health authority has treated those guidelines with a passing disinterest bordering on contempt. In none of the closure proposals is any of the five criteria adequately pursued. If the Minister takes his own guidelines seriously, he must insist that the health authority shows a greater professional integrity in undertaking its consultations.
I draw to the Minister's attention Deloitte's severe criticism of the health authority over its lack of strategic

planning for the development of the hospital service, which is relevant to the fifth point that I mentioned. Deloitte commented in paragraph 86 that, in Gwynedd,
Planning operates outside the General Management Structure.
The report adds in paragraph 91:
Initiatives for district services were allowed to develop without any detailed operational planning and without examining the availability of any additional funding.
That is borne out by the way in which tens of thousands of pounds were spent by the health authority on upgrading the cottage hospital in Caernarfon during the past two years, making it suitable to provide services for disabled people, then deciding last autumn to close down that hospital and write off most of the spending that has added little to the market value of the building.
Deloitte states in paragraph 98:
The Authority has not yet developed a management plan as an element of its overall strategic operational planning process.
However, Health Service planning paper 5 requires specifically that closure proposals should cover the relationship between the proposed closure and other developments in the area's plans. That has manifestly not happened in these closure proposals.
I want to raise with the Minister the inadequacy of the health authority's consultation document used as the basis of the proposed closures. There was a common element in each of the closure documents, which were, through no fault of the authority, severely dated and consequently misleading long before the expiry of the consultation period. For example, the health authority forecast in its consultation documents an overspend of £1·3 million in 1987–88. In the authority meeting of 25 April, it was admitted that the actual result was likely to be an underspend of £150,000, and that was achieved without closing the hospitals now threatened.
Secondly, the authority published the consultation document on the assumption that there would be a continuing underfunding of wage awards "on a recurring basis" and that £750,000 had to be found this year to meet that cost. But the Government have announced subsequently that the wage award is being fully funded and consequently the assumption by the health authority is incorrect. Thirdly, the authority assumed, as a justification for its closure proposals, that it would be required by the Welsh Office to transfer each year 0·5 per cent. of its budget to priority services. In fact, since the publication of the consultative document, the Welsh Office has withdrawn that requirement.
In addition, a number of factors quoted by the health authority at its meeting on 25 April were not included in the original consultation documents, such as the assertion that no capital would be available for alternative hospital provision and that the package had to be taken in its entirety, not hospital by hospital. Is such an approach correct or acceptable?
I remind the Minister that, in response to a parliamentary question of mine on 18 January, he stated that if a consultation document were found to be
faulty, misleading or inadequate in a way that might he prejudicial to proper consultation, it is likely that further consultation would be required."—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 547.]
I put it to the Minister, on the basis of the misleading assumptions that I have just described and because of the authority's failure to draw up consultation documents in line with the requirements of Health Service planning


paper 5, that there is now a responsibility on the Welsh Office at the very least to withdraw the present proposals and to seek consultation on the basis of correct information, against the background of a properly discussed strategic plan for hospital services in the county.
The closure of the Ysbyty Madog would leave the town of Porthmadog without a single hospital facility. Against the background of the explosion at the Coake's works in Penrhyndeudraeth yesterday, the implications must be clear. Porthmadog serves as a centre for a tourist area the population of which is increased by tens of thousands in the summer. All the health authority's plans over the past 10 years assumed that there would be a new, modern community hospital in the Porthmadog area and that the Madog would be retained until a new hospital was built. Those plans now seem to have been thrown out of the window in a policy somersault, based on an ad hoc cost-cutting decision rather than on a planned change in health care provision.
The suggested alternative for the Porthmadog people is to use the existing hospital in the village of Penrhyndeudraeth, which is separated from Porthmadog by the Cob built by William Maddocks early last century, which is one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in Wales. Porthmadog is 30 miles from the district general hospital at Bangor.
The local campaign committee has had the advice of a chartered accountant, Mr. Dan Ellis, to examine the claimed savings from closing the hospital—£237,000 a year. He has shown that the figure is not a net saving but rather the gross cost of running the Madog hospital. It makes no allowance for the cost of caring for patients elsewhere; nor is any compensation included for staff having to move to other jobs.
The health authority has acknowledged that if the Madog closes it would
result in a substantial loss of service to the people of Eifionydd".
Furthermore, some of the patients who use the Madog for respite care—they include some EMI patients—might have to resort to private nursing home or residential home facilities if the Madog were not available. If that were to happen, the Exchequer would probably have to pay £200 a week to keep those people in private homes. The health authority admits that it has not taken that aspect into account, claiming that it is under no obligation to do so. Presumably the Welsh Office cannot pass on its responsibilities quite so easily, and the Treasury might have something to say about that.
There is real doubt whether the authority is legally entitled to sell a building that was erected by public subscription specifically as Porthmadog's memorial to the dead of the first world war.
The decision to close the Madog was taken by eight votes to seven, with the vice-chair of the authority abstaining. That is clearly an inadequate basis for such a far-reaching decision and the Secretary of State certainly should not endorse the closure proposal.
The cottage hospital in Caernarfon is an ideal ground floor building, recently modernised at a cost, according to the authority, of £45,000, although others put it at nearer £80,000. It currently provides 14 vital general practitioner beds and enables many people to recuperate or have short-term or respite care, within their own community. The hospital was adapted last year, in conjunction with the

'all-Wales strategy for mentally handicapped people', to provide dental care for disabled people, for whom doors were widened, and other facilities installed.
It was also planned that the hospital would provide a community physiotherapy service. The alternative open to GPs in Caernarfon is to refer patients to the orthopaedic consultant at Bangor, with a 38-week waiting period. It was planned that the cottage hospital would give an immediate service. Last August, a physiotherapist was appointed to serve there. But, before the appointee could take up the job, the authority decided to close the hospital. That example, together with the capital spending to which I have referred, underlines the collapse of coherent planning of services and resource allocation in Gwynedd.
The closure of the cottage hospital would mean that Caernarfon would have no casualty unit. The closure would mean that Caernarfon people have to go to Bangor for a casualty unit. In fact, the Deloitte report justified the use of the Bangor casualty unit on the basis that the road link to Bangor
will be greatly improved with the Port Dinorwic bypass".
That road will not be open for two or three years, and, in the meantime, casualty cases would be liable to long traffic delays at Port Dinorwic, which are likely to worsen while the bypass is being built. Incidentally, the use of the cottage casualty unit is currently running 30 per cent. higher than that quoted in the consultation document.
The consultation document is also gravely misleading in its assessment of patient activity levels. It quotes the figure for 1986 as 67 per cent. for a 10-bed facility. It is outrageous that such figures should have been used. The fact is that 1986 was the year i n which much building work was being undertaken at the hospital, and the beds were not all available for periods of time. Now the hospital has 14 beds and the bed occupancy for the first quarter of 1988 was 83 per cent. not the 67 per cent. on which the consultation document was based. That compares with a Welsh average of 79 per cent.
An 83 per cent. utilisation of 14 beds is a very different story from a 67 per cent. use of 10 beds. The cost per in-patient day quoted as £81 would reduce to £66 on that basis. Furthermore, the hospital is now running with a lower staff complement, with a saving of £27,000 a sear. It now has 13·6 whole-time equivalent nursing staff, compared with the 16 quoted in the closure document. That brings the cost down to £58 per in-patient, which is not far from the Welsh average of £50.
The savings claimed in the consultation document amount to £260,000. However, that is also shown as the total running cost of the hospital. In other words, the authority assumes that the entire current running costs can be saved by closing the cottage hospital. That is absolute nonsense. The authority claims that there will be alternative arrangements for dental services, special needs, the orthodontic clinic service and for speech therapy. It also admits that greater pressure will be put on other hospitals, community health services and hospital day care facilities. Those alternatives will all cost something, and the savings are likely to be appreciably less than those claimed.
Furthermore, as no staff are to be made redundant, the salaries will still have to be paid. The savings will only arise when the cottage hospital staff are redeployed to replace staff who retire. Even then, there will be relocation and disturbance costs.
One GP at Caernarfon has estimated that as many as 20 elderly people currently receiving respite care at the cottage hospital may be forced into other institutional care, almost certainly into private sector nursing or residential homes. Overwhelmingly, those people will be paid for by social security, and that cost alone could wipe out the bulk of the savings.
At the meeting of the health authority on 25 April, one member, Mr. Alun Jones, proposed that the decisions on the Madog and cottage hospitals should be postponed because the case was far from clear-cut. However, the general manager insisted that the package should be looked at in its entirety—a stipulation that I challenged earlier. The vote to close the cottage hospital was by 10 votes to six, showing a deep division within the authority. I urge the Minister, for all the reasons I have outlined, to reject the closure proposal and to seek a strategy for hospital services at Caernarfon that will enhance rather than diminish health care in the region.
I have referred specifically to the position of the cottage hospital in Caernarfon and the Madog memorial hospital, because they are in my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) feels equally strongly about the lack of coherent planning over the closure of the Druid hospital at Llangefni and has led a deputation to see the Minister on the matter. He urges the retention of the Druid until an acceptable alternative new hospital is open and functioning at Llangefni.
None of us wants to argue that every building and facility run by Gwynedd health authority must remain inviolate for ever. We argue that there is an overwhelming case for taking those decisions as a part of a long-term strategy and not as a short-term expedient. Such a strategy may well need a capital investment programme at a significantly higher level than that currently available to the authority. If we are to have a system of modern community hospitals in Gwynedd for the 21st century, we shall almost certainly need new buildings and new facilities.
Until such projects are properly planned and scheduled, we have to maintain the existing facilities unless there is an overwhelming reason to do otherwise. That means running what we have in the most efficient manner possible and closing hospitals only when new and better facilities are on stream. To do otherwise is to accept an actual reduction in health care for our communities. That is not acceptable to the people of Gwynedd and neither should it be to a Government who claim that the Health Service is safe in their hands.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have exchanged several letters in recent months on the subject of Gwynedd health authority's proposals for the future of hospital services in its district. My right hon. Friend and I have also met the hon. Gentleman to hear his views at first hand. We have explained the procedures under which district health authorities can brine about chances in hospital service provision and the

way in which the arrangements for public consultation are designed to take account of views expressed on the health authority's proposals.
However, I would have welcomed the chance to expand on this theme tonight and also to explain why, although I welcome the submission of views on the proposals, it would be inappropriate for me to make any substantive comments at this stage or, sadly, to reply to the trenchant points made, or rather repeated, by the hon. Gentleman.
The proposals have been drawn up in the light of the authority's financial problems, which it drew to the attention of Welsh Office at the beginning of last year. After discussion with the authority's chairman and senior officers, it was decided to bring in management consultants at the Welsh Office's expense to investigate the authority's financial position.
The consultants concluded that the authority's problems had their roots in 1984–85, with a developing trend of overspending on budgets in following years. The authority had managed to contain its overspending by taking advantage of non-recurrent savings—including slippage on capital schemes—and in 1986–87 by substantially increasing its creditor balances. By 1987–88, however, the position had become untenable.
The consultants attributed the authority's position to: the cumulative under-funding of pay awards; an increase in activity levels, particularly in high-cost specialties at Ysbyty Gwynedd; the failure to make recurrent savings to finance the 0·5 per cent. transfer of funds to priority groups; and the effects of incremental drift on pay. None of the factors identified as underlying the authority's financial position is unique to Gwynedd. Other authorities, less favourably resourced than Gwynedd, have managed to contain their spending in the face of similar pressures.
The consultants also concluded that insufficient management action had been taken to control activity and spending levels. Later in their report, they were critical of the authority's systems of planning, budgeting and financial control. It is vital that, as part of its programme to restore financial balance, the authority takes vigorous action to improve its arrangements for planning, budgeting and financial control.
The authority remained within its cash limit last year partly as a result of the non-recurrent supplementary funding that all authorities shared, and partly because of loan support from the Welsh Office in recognition of its cash difficulties. Provisionally it seems that the authority may have overspent in income and expenditure terms last year by some £210,000, although this will be established when the authority has submitted its annual accounts. It is apparent therefore that the authority still has underlying recurrent financial problems.
Those problems are the more serious when set against the background that the authority is shown, by both the capital and revenue formulae used to assess the relative funding position of Welsh health authorities, to be one of the best resourced in Wales. The growth in recurrent revenue resources—not including the funding of the review bodies' pay awards in 1988–89—which have been made available to the authority in the period 1978–79 to 1988–89 is some £17·5 million, or more than 43 per cent. after adjusting for actual and expected inflation. That is the second highest rate of growth of any authority in Wales, and compares favourably with the Welsh average of 36 per cent.
In the light of those figures, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the level of financial management shown by the authority. That was one of the reasons for calling in the management consultants. The consultants' recommendations bear out that decision. I expect to see a considerable improvement in the quality of financial management in Gwynedd this year, and I shall be keeping a very close watch on developments. In particular, I expect much tighter control to be exercised over budgets than has been the case in the past.
I have spent a little time on the financial position of Gwynedd health authority, but I make no apology for that, as it is central to our discussions today.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon will understand that I cannot comment on the health authority's proposals, but it may be helpful if I end by saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received several hundred letters of objection to the proposals. There is no set time

scale for consideration of the proposals and the objections that they have attracted, but this will be done as quickly as is consistent with full and careful consideration of all the issues raised. Once a conclusion has been reached, a letter setting out my right hon. Friend's decisions and the reasons for them will be sent o the health authority and to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon has expressed concern about aspects of the consultation procedure carried out by Gwynedd health authority. I assure him that the points that he has made today, together with those that he made earlier in writing and in meetings with rue and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be fully and carefully considered, as will those submitted by all other interested parties, before any decision is taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o'clock.